2013 (5) TMI 785

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 40(a)(ia) at Rs. 8,71,372 in respect of VSAT, transaction and lease line charges paid to the stock exchange. 2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. Since the matter seems to be covered with earlier judgments of this Tribunal, we proceed to decide the same. The assessee-company, engaged in the business of share trading and stock broking, claimed/debited transaction charges, VSAT charges and lease line charges totalling to Rs. 8,71,372, which was paid by it to the stock exchange on account of transactions in securities made by the assessee through the stock exchange. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance treating the same as payment for technical services on which tax was required to be deducted at source under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;        " Further, there is no bifurcation of the amounts of VSAT, lease line and transaction charges. In the case of Deputy CIT v. Angel Broking Ltd. [2010] 3 ITR (Trib) 294 (Mum) in ITA No. 475 of 2011 dated 28th July, 2011, the hon'ble High Court held that VSAT and lease line charges paid to the stock exchange are not paid in consideration of technical services. Therefore, there is no need for deducting tax. The same principles were reiterated by the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Stock and Bond Trading Company in ITA No. 4117 of 2010 dated 14th October, 2011 wherein VSAT charges, NSE lease line charges and transaction charges were considered and held against the Revenue foll....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the judgment has observed as under (page 200) :                " The second part of the argument is that the hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 333 (Bom) has observed in para 31 that both parties has proceeded on the footing that tax was not deductible under section 194J for the last 10 years, therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) could not be invoked. It was contended that in the last many years in the case before us also no tax was held to be deductible, therefore, the asses see and the Department proceeded on the footing that no tax was deductible. However, on query by the Bench learned counsel of th....