M/s. PKC Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. ACIT, Circle - 5, Kolkata, Karnataka

ITA 2236/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48238 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R PURAKAYASTHA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K TULSIYAN
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , . . !' ) [BEFORE HONBLE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & HONBLE SHR I C. D. RAO, AM] # # # # / I.T.A NOS. 2236&2237/KOL/2010 $% &' $% &' $% &' $% &'/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07&2007-08 M/S. PKC STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD. VS ASSISTANT COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN AABCP 5618 H)) CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA. ()* /APPELLANT ) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. K. TULSIYAN FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI B. R. PURAKAYASTHA !- / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THESE APPEALS, BY ASSESSEE, ARE ARISING OUT OF ORDE RS OF CIT(A)-VI, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NOS. 1105&911/CIT(A)-VI/CIR-5/KOL/09-10 DATED 19.11 .2010. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED BY ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 115WE(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 -07 & 2007-08 VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 27.11.2008 AND 23.12.2009. 2. THE ONLY COMMON ISSUE OF THESE APPEALS OF THE AS SESSEE IS AGAINST ORDERS OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLO WING STT PAID CORRECTLY AS PER SECTION 88E OF THE ACT. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED COMMON G ROUND IN BOTH THE YEARS AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL, HENCE, WE DECI DE THIS ISSUE FROM ITA NO. 2237/KOL/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, AS IN THIS YEAR THE IS SUE IS DEALT WITH AT LENGTH. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER: 1.THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VI, KOLKATA DAT ED 19.11.2010 CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HAVING ASSESSED INCOME FROM BROKERAGE AND THE TRADING ACTIVITIES BY ATTRIBUTED EXPENSES INCURRED ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS IS ARBITRARY, UNCALLED FOR AND HENCE BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E APPELLANT COMPANY IS A SHARE BROKER AND DISCHARGES PRIMARY FUNCTION AS THAT OF T HE SHARE BROKER, THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS ARE ATTRIBUTAB LE MAINLY TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE BROKERAGE BUSINESS. 2 ITA 2236 & 2237/K/2010 PKC STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD. A.Y.06-07 & 07-08 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. A.O. AND THE CIT(A) HA VING FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE REALITY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANYS BUSINESS, THE IR RATIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSES TO THE SHARE BUSINESS BE QUASHED AND YOUR APPELLANT BE GIVEN SUCH RELIEF(S) AS PRAYED FOR. 4. THAT THE CREDIT FOR THE STT UNDER SECTION 88E SH OULD BE DIRECTED TO BE GIVEN BY REARRANGING THE INCOME FROM BROKERAGE AND TRADING A CTIVITY BY ALLOCATING ON SOME NOTIONAL EXPENDITURE TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT AN D THUS DIRECTING CREDIT OF THE STT AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ABOVE ISSUE ARE T HAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED REBATE U/S. 88E OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.36,61,973/- ON ACCOUNT OF S TT PAID. ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY TOTAL TAX HAS BEEN SET OFF WITH REBATE U/S. 88E OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON TAXABLE SECURITY TRANSACTIONS, WHEREAS IT H AS ALSO AFFECTED NON-STT INCOME AND CLAIMED REBATE. ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A SEBI REGISTERED STOCK BROKER AND MAIN OBJECT IS TO EARN BROKERAGE ON TRADES EXECUTED ON BEHALF O F CLIENTS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT IS MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR EARNING INCOME OF SHARE TRADING TRANSACTIONS AND IT HAS NOT TO APPORTION EXPENSES AMONGST ITEMS OF INCOMING FALLIN G UNDER THE SAME HEAD. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IF EXPENSES ARE REDUCED FROM GROSS TOTAL INCOME, THEN METHOD ADOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS. IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE TREATED EXPENSES OF RS.1,11,91,261/- AS COMMON EXPE NSES AND SHOULD NOT HAVE APPORTIONED BETWEEN STT RELATED INCOME AND NON-STT RELATED INCO ME IN THE RATIO OF 38.4% AND 61.6%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) ALLOWED REB ATE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF STT PAID ON RELATED INCOME I.E. SHARE TRADING TRANSACTIONS ONLY . THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY GIVING FOLLOWING FINDING: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE CALCULATION GIVEN BY T HE LD. A/R. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT LD. A/R HAS ATTEMPTED TO PROJECT THE ABOVE EXPENSES IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE EXPENSES RELATED TO THE STT RELATED TRANSACTION COULD BE MIN IMIZED, SO THAT NET STT RELATED INCOME COMES AT A HIGHER FIGURE AND THE REBATE U/S. 88E COULD BE MORE. HOWEVER, IN DOING SO THE ARGUMENTS GIVEN LD. AR. D O NOT LOOK LOGICAL AND CONVINCING. I FIND THAT WHILE ANALYZING THE EXPENS ES THE AO ON HIS OWN HAS IDENTIFIED A NUMBER OF EXPENSES RELATED TO BROKERAGE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ON HIS OWN HAS TREATED EXPENSES OF RS. 94,79,352/- AS DIRECT EXPEN SES RELATED TO NON-STT RELATED INCOME AND HAS NOT ATTRIBUTED THEM TO STT RELATED I NCOME AT ALL. IN THE ABOVE CALCULATION GIVEN BY THE LD. A.R. MANY EXPENSES SUC H AS DIRECTORS REMUNERATION MOTOR CAR EXPENSES RENT REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE DEPRE CIATION ETC. HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO BE FULLY RELATED TO THE BROKERAGE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . FROM THE VERY NATURE OF THESE EXPENSES IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THESE ARE COMMON EXPENSES FOR ALL TYPES OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANNOT BE LINKED ONL Y TO THE SHARE BROKING ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE VERY MUCH INCU RRED FOR EARNING THE STT RELATED INCOME ALSO. SIMILARLY, OUT OF SOME OF THE EXPENSES THE ASSESSEE HAS CALCULATED CERTAIN AMOUNTS RELATED TO SHARE TRADING INCOME AND BROKERA GE INCOME. THESE EXPENSES ALSO APPEAR TO BE COMMON IN NATURE AND I DO NOT AGREE WI TH THE BIFURCATION DONE BY THE 3 ITA 2236 & 2237/K/2010 PKC STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD. A.Y.06-07 & 07-08 ASSESSEE. THEN OUT OF THE BALANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 5 2,17,603/- THE ASSESSEE HAS APPORTIONED ONLY 10% OF EXPENSES TO THE STT RELATED INCOME. THIS APPORTIONMENT IS WITHOUT ANY LOGIC AND I REJECT THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION HOLD THAT INDIRECT EXPENSES OF RS. 1,11,91,261 ARE COMMON EXPENSES AND HAVE TO BE APPORTIONED BETW EEN THE NON-STT RELATED INCOME AND SIT RELATED INCOME. THE BEST WAY TO APPO RTION THESE EXPENSES IS TO DO SO IN PROPORTION OF BOTH TYPES OF INCOME. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE APPORTIONMENT OF THESE EXPENSES IN THE RATIO OF 38.4% AND 61.6% DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT. I CONFIRM THE CALCULATION OF REBATE U/S 88E DONE B Y THE AO IN HIS ORDER U/S 154 DATED 19.1.2010 AS CORRECT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED REBATE U/S 88E AMOUNTING TO RS.25,02,156/-. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE CASE. FIRST OF ALL WE WILL GO TO RELEVANT PROVISION OF SE CTION 88E OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY SEC. 23 OF THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 W.E.F. 1.4. 2005 I.E. FOR AND FROM AY 2005-06, NAMELY:- 88E. (1) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IN A PREV IOUS YEAR INCLUDES ANY INCOME, CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION, ARISING FROM TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, HE SHALL BE ENTITL ED TO A DEDUCTION, FROM THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX ON SUCH INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSAC TIONS, COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (2), OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX PAID BY HIM IN RESPECT OF THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIO NS ENTERED INTO IN THE COURSE OF HIS BUSINESS DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR: PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHALL BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM 59 : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER THIS SUB-SECTIO N SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX ON SUCH INCOME COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (2). (2) FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX ON THE INCOME ARISING FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION, SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE AVERAGE RATE OF INCOME-TAX ON SUCH INCOME. EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE EXPRESSIONS, TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTION AND SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANINGS RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE FINANCE ( NO. 2) ACT, 2004.] FROM THE ABOVE PROVISION OF SECTION 88E, WE FIND TH AT THE REBATE U/S. 88E(1) IS AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESSEE WHOSE TOTAL INCOME IN PREVIOUS YEAR INCLUD ES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ARISI NG FROM TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ARE DEFINED AS PER EXPLANATION TO SEC. 88E AND THE EXPRESSIONS TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTION AND SECURITIES TR ANSACTION TAX SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING RESPECTIVELY ASSIGNED TO THEM UNDER CHAPTER VII OF THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. ACCORDING TO SEC. 97 OF ACT 23 OF 2004 TAXABLE SECURITIES TRA NSACTION MEANS A TRANSACTION OF (A) PURCHASE OR SALE OF AN EQUITY SHARE IN A COMPANY OR A DERIVATIVE OR A UNIT OF AN EQUITY ORIENTED FUND ENTERED INTO IN A RECOGNISED STOCK EX CHANGE; OR 4 ITA 2236 & 2237/K/2010 PKC STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD. A.Y.06-07 & 07-08 (B) SALE OF UNIT OF ANY EQUITY ORIENTED FUND TO THE MUT UAL FUND. FURTHER, AS PER SEC. 97(11) OF ACT 23 OF 2004, SECU RITIES TRANSACTION MEANS:- TAX PAYABLE ON TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VII OF ACT 23 OF 2004. U/S. 88E(2) OF THE ACT QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION ALLOWAB LE TO ELIGIBLE ASSESSEE FROM THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX ON SUCH INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSAC TIONS, COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 88E(2) OF THE ACT I.E. OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL T O THE SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX PAID BY IT IN RESPECT OF THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ENTE RED INTO IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. FURTHER, THE SECOND PROVIS O ALSO QUALIFIES THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX ON INCOME COMPUTED U /S. 88E(2) OF THE ACT. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 88E(1) OF THE ACT STATES THAT THE A MOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 88E(1) OF THE ACT SHALL NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX ON THE INCOME A RISING FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SEC . 88E(2) OF THE ACT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX ON INCOME ARISI NG FROM TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTION HAS BEEN ORDAINED BY SEC. 88E(2) OF THE ACT FOR THE PUR POSES OF SEC. 88E(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE AVERAGE RATE OF INCOME TAX, AS DEFINED IN SEC. 2(10) OF THE ACT, ON SUCH INCOME. 5. FROM THE ABOVE NEW SEC. 88E OF THE ACT, WHICH PR OVIDES FOR A REBATE FROM TAX IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STT, WHERE TOTAL INC OME OF ASSESSEE IN A PREVIOUS YEAR INCLUDES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROF ITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ARISING FROM TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS IT SHA LL BE ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION FROM THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX ON SUCH INCOME ARISING FROM SUCH TRAN SACTIONS COMPUTED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE SECURI TIES TRANSACTIONS TAX PAID BY HIM IN RESPECT OF TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS DURING THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SEC. 88E OF THE ACT CLEAR LY MENTIONS THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB- SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX ON INCOME ARI SING FROM TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, REFERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION, SHALL BE EQUAL TO AMOUNT CALCULATED BY APPLYING THE AVERAGE OF INCOME TAX ON THAT INCOME. IT IS CLEAR THAT TAX RE BATE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS STT WOULD BE ENJOYED BY PERSONS HAVING INCOME FROM BUSI NESS OR PROFESSION AND NOT BY PERSONS DERIVING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. NOW THE FACTS IN PRESENT CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AFFECTED STT ON SHARE TRANSACTIONS AT RS.1,26,04,88 2/- AND AO HAS ATTRIBUTED INDIRECT COMMON EXPENSES AT RS.42,97,444/- AS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY OUT OF TOTAL INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING AND HELD THE INCOME FROM SHARE TRADIN G AT RS.66,30,148/-. WE FIND THAT IN THE 5 ITA 2236 & 2237/K/2010 PKC STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD. A.Y.06-07 & 07-08 PROVISION OF SECTION 88E OF THE ACT, NOWHERE PROVID ED THE MANNER TO APPORTION THE EXPENDITURE ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIFFERENT ITEMS FALLING UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, AND ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN SHARES EVEN BEFORE INTRODUCT ION OF SEC. 88E OF THE ACT IN THE STATUTE. THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME IS ASSESSED UNDER HEAD INC OME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, MAY IT BE FROM BROKERAGE OR SHARES OR FROM ANY OTHER BUSINESS ITEM. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS APPORTIONED EXPENDITURE RELATED TO EACH ITEM FALLIN G UNDER THAT HEAD BY ESTIMATING THE DISALLOWANCE AT 10% ON TOTAL INCOME DERIVED BY IT F ROM STT AFFECTED ON SHARE TRANSACTIONS 6. AS FAR AS ESTIMATION OF EXPENDITURE BY AO AND CI T(A) WHILE CALCULATING THE RATIO AT 38.4% AND 61.6% AND APPORTIONING THE INDIRECT COMMO N EXPENSES AT RS.1,11,91,261/- ON THAT BASIS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS STT PAID AT RS. 1,26,04,882/- BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE ALSO DEDUCTED RS.59,74,734/- OF STT DU LY DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AS THIS AMOUNT IS DEDUCTED BY NSE/NSCCL FROM THE PAY OUT OF ASSESSEE. WHENEVER SECURITIES ARE SOLD IN STOCK EXCHANGE, NET PAYMENT OF SALES ARE RE CEIVED AFTER DEDUCTING STT FROM SALE PROCEEDS. HERE WE WANT TO EXPLAIN BY EXAMPLE, FOR E.G. 10 SHARES ARE SOLD @ RS.20/-, THEN THE PAYMENT OF RS.200/- (10X 20) IS NOT RECEIVED BY SEL LER, THE SELLER RECEIVES ONLY RS.198/- BECAUSE OF STT OF RS.2/-. SO, THE SELLER CREDITS SALES ACC OUNT BY RS.198/- AND NOT BY RS.200/-. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE ASSESSEE IS A SEBI REGISTERED S TOCK BROKER AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ADOPTED IS PAY OUT, PAY IN, MARGINS, OTHER OBLIGATIONS, OTHER ENTITLEMENTS ARE SYSTEM GENERATED AND REGULATED, HENCE THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO CREDIT RS.20 0/- IN SALES ACCOUNT AND THIS INFLATES SALE FIGURE BY RS.2/- I.E. STT. AS THE ASSESSEE ITSELF APPORTIONED SOME RELATED EXPENSES, @ 10% AND THERE IS NO FINDING IN THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORIT IES THAT THIS ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE IS WRONG AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE RATIO OF 38.4% AND 61.6% HAS ANY BASIS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN APPORTIONING THE INDIRECT COMMON EXPENSES TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AND THIS DISTORTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF STT. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATI ON WHY THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE WHILE STATING THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTEMPTED TO MINIMIZE STT RELATED TRANSACTIONS SO THAT NET STT RELATED INCOME COMES AT A HIGHER FIGUR E. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATION. THE AO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 7. SIMILAR IS THE ISSUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN ITA NO. 2236/K/2010, HENCE IN TERM OF THE ABOVE, THIS APPEAL IS ALSO SET ASIDE. 6 ITA 2236 & 2237/K/2010 PKC STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD. A.Y.06-07 & 07-08 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.6.2011 SD/- SD/- . . !' , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ' ' ' ') )) ) DATED 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2011 ./ $01 2 JD.(SR.P.S.) !- 3 +4 5!4&6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . )* / APPELLANT M/S. PKC STOCK BROKING PVT. LTD., 1, R. N. MUKHERJEE ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, MARTIN BURN HOUSE, ROOM NO.11, KOLKATA-700 001. 2 +,)* / RESPONDENT, ACIT, CIRCLE-5, KOLKATA 3 . -$ ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. -$ / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . => +$ / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,4 +/ TRUE COPY, !-$?/ BY ORDER, 1 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .