SHCIL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 4(2), MUMBAI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd, held that transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange are for facilities provided and not for technical services. Therefore, no TDS was deductible under Section 194J, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was incorrect.
What were the facts?
The assessee paid transaction charges to the Bombay Stock Exchange. The Assessing Officer disallowed these charges under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS. The Tribunal had previously ruled against the assessee, but this was based on a High Court decision later reversed by the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
Whether transaction charges paid to the Stock Exchange are subject to TDS under Section 194J, and consequently, whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Kotak Securities Ltd.161 citing340 ITR 333 · 2012 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N.PRASAD (JM) This appeal is recalled for the purpose of disposing of the ground relating to disallowance of transaction charges paid to BSE u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.
2 & CO No.1221/Mum/2011 (A.Y.2007-08) M/s SCHCIL Services Ltd.
This Tribunal by order dated 28.8.2014 in ITA No.1796/Mum/2011 decided this issue against the Assessee by following the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd [340 ITR 333]. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Securities Ltd, wherein, it was held that the view taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the transaction charges paid to the Bombay Stock Exchange by its members are for technical services rendered is not an appropriate view. It was held that such charges are in the nature of payments made for facilities provided by the Stock Exchange and no TDS on such payments would therefore be deductible u/s 194J of the Act. In view of this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appeal of the Revenue was recalled by this Tribunal in MA No.106/Mum/2010 dated 31.2.2017 to dispose off the ground in consonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kotak Services Ltd. Therefore, respectfully following the said decision, we decide this issue in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue. Assessing Officer is directed to delete the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) in respect of transaction charges paid by the Assessee to Stock Exchange.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue on this ground is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 12th day of May 2017.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026
- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026