TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Jhunjunwala ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A) IV, Mumbai dated 1.8.08 and the same is being disposed of along with C.O. filed by the assessee being C.O. No. 204/Mum/2009. 2. Ground No. 1 to 7 of this appeal involve a common issue relating to the disallowance made by the A.O. u/s. 40(a)(ia) on account of Leaseline charges amounting to Rs. 1,66,301/- and V. Sat charges amounting to Rs. 3,12,597/- paid to stock exchange which stands deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 3. The assessee in the present case is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of share and stock broking. The return of income for the year under consideration was filed by it on 31.10.2005 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leted by the ld. CIT(A). He however, held that the amount paid by the assessee to stock exchange on account of transaction charges was in the nature of fees paid for technical or managerial services and tax at source therefore was liable to be deducted therefrom u/s. 194J. He, therefore, confirmed the disallowance made by the A.O. on account of transaction charges u/s.40(a)(ia) as no tax was admittedly deducted by the assessee company from the payment thereof. 4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the issue involved in ground No. 1 to 7 of the Revenue s appeal relating to disallowance on account of Leaseline charges and V. sat charges made u/s. 40(a)(ia) is s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 37(1) which is aimed at providing deterrence for infraction of laws of the country. To the similar effect in the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the ITAT in the case of Master Capital Services Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 108 TTJ 389 wherein it was held that fines and penalties paid by the assessee to NSE for trading beyond exposer limit, late submissions of margin certificates and delay in making deliveries of shares due to deficiencies are payments made in regular course of business and not for infraction of law as envisaged in proviso to section 37(1). In our opinion, these decisions of the Tribunal are squarely applicable to the issue under consideration and respectfully following the same, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) delet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
