TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 496
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring total income of Rs. 15,23,08,609/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment on 31-12-2009 u/s. 143(3) of the of the Income Tax Act [Act], determined the total income at Rs. 17,13,36,028/-. 3. There is only one issue in appeal and that relates to the addition of Rs. 1,76,25,313/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The facts are that assessee is a registrar and share transfer agent. The AO found that under 'Operating Expenses' , assessee had debited the aforementioned amount under the head 'Settlement and Custody Fees'. Assessee explained that it was a registrar to issue of shares. On allotment of shares in public issue, it requests the NSDL/CDSL to credit the shares to the account of the respective shareholders. This act of crediti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecurities Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT [124 TTJ 214], which was not applicable as the facts were different. The said order related to professional or technical services and in the current case, there were no such professional or technical services, accordingly, it was requested by assessee that the addition be deleted and the order of the Hon'ble ITAT confirming the same addition should not be considered as binding. 5. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not agree and confirmed the action of AO by stating as under: "4.3 I have seen carefully the facts, the evidence and I have also gone through the orders of the Hon'ble CIT(A) and the Hon'ble ITAT for the assessment year 2008-09 referred to supra on the same issue. Both the authorities have confir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Respectfully following the order of the honourable ITAT, I hold that the appellant was bound to deduct taxes and not having done so section 40(a)(ia) fully applies and I find no reason to interfere with the addition made by the assessing officer". 6. Before us, Ld. Counsel submitted that the order of ITAT in earlier year has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kotak Securities Ltd., Vs. Addl. CIT [124 TTJ 214] (supra) which was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd., in Civil Appeal No. 3141 of 2016 dt. 29-03-2016 and the facts of the case are similar. 7. Ld. DR however, fairly relied on the orders of ITAT in earlier years and supported the orders of Ld. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....city is provided for by the Stock Exchange. All such services, fully automated, are available to all members of the stock exchange in respect of every transaction that is entered into. There is nothing special, exclusive or customised service that is rendered by the Stock Exchange. "Technical services" like "Managerial and Consultancy service" would denote seeking of services to cater to the special needs of the consumer/user as may be felt necessary and the making of the same available by the service provider. It is the above feature that would distinguish/identify a service provided from a facility offered. While the former is special and exclusive to the seeker of the service, the latter, even if termed as a service, is available to all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....change for which a member is compulsorily required to pay an additional charge (based on the transaction value) over and above the charges for the membership in the Stock Exchange. The above features of the services provided by the Stock Exchange would make the same a kind of a facility provided by the Stock Exchange for transacting business rather than a technical service provided to one or a section of the members of the Stock Exchange to deal with special situations faced by such a member(s) or the special needs of such member(s) in the conduct of business in the Stock Exchange. In other words, there is no exclusivity to the services rendered by the Stock Exchange and each and every member has to necessarily avail of such services in the....