SPT SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 5, KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (Ground no
ITA 265/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010
Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.265/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Spt Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata 11, Clive Row, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. Ayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aadcs 8015 P (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.987/Cit(A)-2/C-5/14-15 Dated 14.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 28.03.2011. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 2. “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case. 2.That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Sub-Brokerage Payments To Sub-Brokers On The Transactions Related To Shares & Securities Inspite Of Specific Exclusion Of The ‘Brokerage On Shares Trade’ From The Definition Of ‘Commission & Brokerage’ In The Explanation To Section 194H. 3.The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) Also Erred In Holding That The Appellant Could Not Prove The Transaction To Be Related To The Trading Of Shares Of Securities. 4.The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Further Erred In Upholding The Addition U/S 14A In Respect Of Shares Held As Stock By The Appellant Company.
For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: NONE
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 40
section 194H of the Act.
We note that there is no material to even suggest that the commission had been paid in connection with increasing the assessee volume of transactions or for doing any other activity. Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of coordinate Bench Mumbai in the case of S.J. Investment Pvt. Limited,(supra), we hold that commission/brokerage of Rs.10
