Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2012 (9) TMI 913 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) - VSAT leaseline and transaction charges - Held that - there is no bifurcation of the amounts of VSAT lease line and transaction charges. In the case of CIT vs. Angel Broking Ltd (2014 (5) TMI 584 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) 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 vs. Stock and Bond Trading Company in 2011 (10) TMI 172 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein VSAT charges NSE lease line charges and transaction charges were considered and held against the Revenue following the decision in the case of DCIT vs. Angel Broking Ltd (2009 (12) TMI 498 - ITAT MUMBAI). The same principles were reiterated in the case of CIT vs. Kotak Securities Ltd 2011 (10) TMI 24 - Bombay High Court . To the extent of VSAT lease line charges the Revenue did not even contest. Even though the Hon ble Court held that the transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange constitute fees for technical services on bonafide belief it was considered that the disallowance cannot be made in that year as the Revenue did not proceed on the footing that assessee is not liable to deduct the tax at source after introduction of the provisions. Since the CIT (A) has only given partial relief of Rs..2, 50, 000/- after considering the ITAT orders in the cases of Kotak Securities ltd 2008 (8) TMI 592 - ITAT MUMBAI and Angel Broking Ltd 2009 (12) TMI 498 - ITAT MUMBAI we are of the opinion that there is no need to disturb the order of the CIT (A). - Decided against Revenue.
|