TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he CIT(A)-8, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The following grounds were urged before us: - 1. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 2,14,832/- made in respect of transaction charges, Leaseline charges of ₹ 7,835/- and VSAT charges of ₹ 82,575/- u/s. 40(a)(ia), without appreciat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s themselves started deducting the TDS on such payments and that there is no reason to give a different treatment in this year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹ 7,98,513/- made in respect of mark to market losses of open interest in derivative transactions at the end of the year relying upon the Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly perused the record. As regards ground No. 1 urged by the Revenue, the facts in short are that the AO was of the view that the VSAT and Leaseline charges paid by the assessee to the Exchange should be treated as fees for technical services in which event tax has to be deducted at source and in the event of default provisions of section 40(a) are applicable. In the case of First Global Stockbr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 7,98,513/- in respect of the difference in valuation, which was explained by the assessee, vide its letter dated 15.12.2009 as under: - Regarding proposed disallowance of ₹ 7,98,513/- as on 31.3.2007 of mark to market loss in respect of open contracts of the derivatives we would like to draw your kind attention in the case of CIT Vs. Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. wherein th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 010). 7. The learned D.R. could not place before us any contrary decision on this issue. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). Accordingly we reject ground No. 2 of the Revenue. 8. Ground No. 3 and 4 are general in nature and need not to be considered independently. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
