TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt : None ORDER Per M.Balaganesh, AM 1. This appeal by the Revenue arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Durgapur [in short the ld CIT(A)] in Appeal No. 08/CIT(A)/DGP/2015-16 dated 31.08.2016 against the order passed by the DCIT, Circle-1, Dgp [ in short the ld AO] under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 18.03.2015 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The only issue to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in deleting the disallowance of commission paid in the sum of ₹ 46,63,217/- in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue are that the assessee during the year under a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 321/M/2010. The ld AO however did not agree to the contentions of the assessee and proceeded to disallow the commission paid in the sum of ₹ 46,63,216.75 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act for violation of provisions of section 194H of the Act. 4. The assessee submitted before the ld CITA that he is registered with SEBI since 27.5.1999 and has been carrying on similar business till date, which has been accepted by the revenue in earlier years even in scrutiny assessment proceedings for the Asst Year 2006-07 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The accounts of the assessee have been audited and no violation on account of TDS had been reported by the tax auditor in his report. The assessee has made payments to Remisiers appointed by the main broker a sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion has been paid on behalf of Shree Bahubali International ltd., the principal and the broker. A perusal of the Explanation (i) to section 194 does not in any way make any distinction between brokers and sub-brokers. It only says that the provision of section 194H would not apply in respect of commission in respect of purchase and sale of securities. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble I.T.A. No. 1818/Kol/2012 in case of appellant for the Assessment year 2009-10 by Hon ble A Bench which was followed by the decision of the co-ordinate of the Hon ble Tribunal Kolkata in the case of Smt. Usha Chowdhury in I.T.A. Nos. 511 512/Kol/2012, dated 22.10.2014, the disallowed made by the AO is hereby deleted. 6. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
