TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Order of the CIT(A) pertaining to the assessment year 2005-2006. The revenue has raised as many as 14 grounds of appeal. At the very outset, Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the issues involved in ground No. 1 to 7 are covered by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, to which the learned D.R. has fairly conceded. 2. We have carefully perused the facts giving rise to the grievance which show that VSAT/Leaseline charges amounting to Rs.3,32,774/- were disallowed by the Assessing Officer, which addition was deleted by the CIT(A). The disallowance was made for non-deduction of tax at source. We have the benefit of the Order of the jurisdictional High Court in ITA.(L) No.475 of 2011 in the case of Angel Capital & Debit Ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court ground No. 1 to 7 are dismissed. 4. Ground No. 8 to 13 relates to the disallowance of penalty of Rs.25,82,779/- being debited by the assessee on violation of the bye laws of the stock exchange. The Counsel once again pointed out that the issues involved in these grounds are also covered by the very same decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court (supra) wherein on the following question raised by the Revenue, the Hon'ble High Court held in para-3 as under : "3. As regards question (C) is concerned the finding of fact recorded by the I.T.A.T. is that the amount paid as penalty was on account of irregularities committed by the assessee's clients. Such payments were not on account of any infractio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee pointed out that the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd. 340 ITR 333. From the perusal of the assessment order show that the assessee has not deducted tax at source on payment of transaction charges amounting to Rs.1,44,70,916/-. It is the contention of the assessee that such transaction charges do not come under the definition of fees for technical/managerial services. We find that identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd. (supra) and the operative portion of the Order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court reads as under : "Held (i) that the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. Ground No. 2, 3 and 4 relates to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has earned dividend amounting to Rs.7,80,60,038/- which were claimed to be exempt from tax. The Assessing Officer was of the opinion that certain expenses have to be attributed for earning tax exempt dividend income and accordingly, made a disallowance of Rs.15,61,200/- being 2% of the dividend income. When the matter was agitated before the CIT(A), the assessee argued that Rule 8D is not applicable for the year under consideration. However, this contention of the assessee did not find favour from the CIT(A) who was of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with Bombay Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange and executes the transactions on behalf of its clients who entered into transactions for purchase or sale of shares on the floor of stock exchange. As per the practice, the assessee charges the STT to the clients in the bills and collects the STT and make the payment of the said STT so collected to the appropriate authority. The Counsel further submitted that in respect of some high-profile institutional clients, the assessee agreed to charge the brokerage inclusive of all the taxes which means that the brokerage amount so received from such high profile institutional clients with certain percentage of STT is also included. The Counsel further demonstrated its method of accounting stati....