I.T.O Wd - 2(4),kolkata, Kolkata V. M Sosha Credit Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2272/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4556 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R AJAT KUMAR KUREEL JCIT LD
• Assessee Lawyers: MIRAJ D SHAH FCA LD
• Keywords: Business income; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 37(1); 37; 6

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, K OLKATA BEFORE : SHRI P.M. JAGTAP , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBE R I.T.A NO. 2272/KOL/2013 A.Y : 2010-11 I.T.O WARD 2(4), KOLKATA VS. M/S. SOSHA CREDIT PVT . LTD PAN: AAECS 2108L (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) FOR THE APPELLANT/ DEPARTMENT: SHRI RAJAT KUM AR KUREEL, JCIT, LD. SR.DR FOR THE RESPONDENT/ ASSESSEE: SHRI M IRAJ D.SHAH, FCA, LD.AR DATE OF HEARING: 22-04-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08- 07-2 016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 390/CIT(A)-1 2(4)2012-13 DATED 03-05 -2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FRAME D U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A)-I, KOLKATA HAD ERRED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWING TO SET OFF SPECULATION LOSS OF RS. 37,43,573/- AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A)-I, KOLKATA HAD ERRED IN DIRECTIN G THE A.O TO ALLOW TO SET OFF SPECULATION LOSS OF RS. 37,43,573/ - AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME. ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 2 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A)-I, KOLKATA HAD ERRED IN DELETING THE EXPENSES OF RS.4,32,999/-. WHEREAS SUCH DISALLOWANC E WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEES OWN AUDITOR WHILE FURN ISHING THE AUDIT REPORT IN PRESCRIBED FORM NO.3CA VIDE ANNEXUR E B OF COLUMN NO. (F). 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN SHARE BROKING AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AT RS.3,05,080 ON 27-09-2010 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. UNDER SCRUTINY NO TICES U/S. 143(2)/142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ALONG WITH RELEVANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND CORRESPONDING EV IDENCES. 4. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE HEARD TOGETHER AS ONE ISSU E INVOLVING THEREIN, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE SET OFF AGAINST OTHER BUSINESS INCOME. THE AO DENIED THE SAME AND TREATED THE AMOU NT OF RS.37,43,573 WAS SPECULATION LOSS AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE APPLYING THE EXPLANATION TO SEC 73 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT CAN BE SET OFF ONLY AGAINST SUCH GAIN OF SAME BUSINESS IN SUBS EQUENT YEARS. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E INCOME FROM BROKERAGE AND SHARE TRADING AS ONE COMPOSITE BUSINESS INCOME AND RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. SANDUNE TRADE PVT. LTD, WHICH HELD THE ACTIVITY ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER PARTIES AND BROKERAGE INCOME EARNED AND EQUITY DEALING IN SHARE S ON OWN ACCOUNT WAS TO BE TREATED AS SHARE TRADING BUSINESS AND IN THE CASE O F DCIT VS. TRADE APARTMENT LTD OF KOLKATA TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2087/KOL/2010 DA TED 13-02-2013), WHICH HELD THE DIVIDEND WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH E SHARES ACQUIRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES R EPRESENTING INCOME OF ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 3 ASSESSEE SPECULATION BUSINESS LOSS AND THEREFORE, E NTITLED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS LOSS. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS AS REL IED ON BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE LOSS INCURRED FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ON PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST SUCH BROKERAGE INCOME. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO ALLOW SUCH SET OFF. 7. AS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HELD IN DEL ETING THE ADDITION BY DISALLOWING THE SPECULATION LOSS AGAINST BUSINESS I NCOME AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 8. IN REPLY, THE LD.AR REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSI ONS AS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT( A) IN DISALLOWING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 9. HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLANATION TO S. 73 IS APPLICABLE FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ON ASSESSEES ACCOUNT AND ON CLI ENTS ACCOUNT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ONE AND INDIVIDUAL BUSINESS. THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DECIDED THE SAME ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SA NDUNE TRADE PVT. LTD SUPRA . THE RELEVANT PORTION OF FINDING IS REPRODUCED HERE UNDER:- THE ACTIVITY WHICH WAS CONDUCTED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER PARTIES, IN WHICH BROKERAGE INCOME WAS EARNED AND THE ACTIVITY OF DEALING IN SHARES IN THE OWN ACCOUN T WAS TO BE TREATED ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 4 AS SHARE TRADING BUSINESS . THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY HAS TO BE TREATED AS ONE. THE STATUTE HAS NOT MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF COMPANIES MADE ON OWN BEHALF AND/ OR ON BEHALF OF OTHERS , WHERE ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE COMPANY CON SISTS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES, IN SOME ON WHICH BROKERAGE WAS EARNED AND IN SOME OTHERS LOSS OR PR OFIT IS EARNED. THE ENTIRE BUSINESS ACTIVITY IS INTER LINKED AND IS TO BE TREATED AS SAME ACTIVITY. 10. WE MAY REFER TO THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT-A IN IMPUGNED REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRADE APARTMENT PVT. LTD SUPRA. THE RELEVANT FINDING IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 13. I ALSO NOTE THAT THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73 N OT ONLY REGARDS OR TREAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE VA LUE AND SALES VALUE OF SHARES AS INCOME OR LOSS DERIVED FROM SPEC ULATION BUSINESS BUT EVERY INCOME OR ACCRETION OR EVERY EXPENDITURE OR LOSS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES IS CONSIDERED OR REGARDED TO BE THE INCOME OR LOSS OF SPECULATION BUSINESS. THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH, IN THE CASE OF T RADE APARTMENTS PVT. LTD IN ITA NO. 2087/KOL/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1996-97 HAS HELD THAT DIVIDEND WHICH WAS EARNED BY THE ASS ESSEE ON THE SHARES ACQUIRED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OF PURCHA SE AND SALE OF SHARES; REPRESENTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES SPECUL ATION BUSINESS AND THEREFORE ENTITLED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST SPECUL ATION BUSINESS LOSS. I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT SHARE BROKING INCOME WHICH THE ASSESSEE DERIVED DURING FY 2009-10 FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF OTHER BODIES CORPORATE CAME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 73. IT IS FOR THIS REASON, THE LOSS INCURRED F ROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ON PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF AGAINST SUCH BROKERAGE INCOME. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECT ED TO ALLOW SUCH SET OFF. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE DECIDED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED SHARE TRADING LOSS OF RS.31,18,920/- ON ACCOUNT OF DELIVERY AND RS.6,24,6 53/- ON NON DELIVERY TOTALING ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 5 TO RS.37,43,573/- AND CLAIMED TO SET OFF AGAINST TH E INCOME FROM OTHER BUSINESS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT, HOWEVER, THE AO DENIED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF MAN Y OTHER HEADS OF INCOME AND THERE WAS NO GAIN IN TRADING AND ALLOWED CARRY FORW ARD NEXT YEAR. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AS H ELD IN THE CASE OF SANDUNE TRADE PVT. LTD SUPRA THAT THE BROKERAGE INCOME WAS EARNED AND THE ACTIVITY OF DEALING IN SHARES IN THE OWN ACCOUNT WAS TO BE TREA TED AS SHARE TRADING BUSINESS . THE ENTIRE ACTIVITY HAS TO BE TREATED AS ONE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF T HE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO-3 INVOLVING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN SES OF RS.4,32,999/- BEING PENAL IN NATURE BY THE AO. BEFORE THE CIT-A, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE RULES FRAMED BY THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE CAN NOT BE EQUATED WITH ANY STATUTORY RULES AND REGULATIONS, CONSIDERING THE SA ME, THE CIT-A DELETED SAID ADDITION. 13. BEFORE US, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.AR REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS ADVANCED BEFORE THE CIT-A. 14. HEARD BOTH REPRESENTATIVES AND PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE QUESTION THAT NOW ARISES IS WHETHER THIS AMOUNT WAS A PAYMENT IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY IN TERMS OF SECTION 37 OF THE ACT . IN THIS REGARD WE MAY REFER TO THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. GDB SHARE & S TOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD BY ITAT, KOLKATA 'C BENCH REP ORTED IN 88 TTJ(KOL)352, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDER IS RE PRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 6 10. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13,967 FROM M ISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES BEING PENALTY CHARGES ARE CONCERNED, WE HA VE NOTICED FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN PAID TO NATIONA L STOCK EXCHANGE FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE DUES AND FOR VARIOUS OT HER OBLIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE PENALTY CHARGES CA NNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ANY LAW BUT HAS BEEN PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE TO COMPENSATE FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE DUES TO THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER OBLIGATIONS . WE, THEREFORE, AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IS, THEREF ORE, NOT JUSTIFIED AND HE HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE RS. 13 ,967 FROM THE TOTAL INCOME 15. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE PAID PENALT Y FOR DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE DUES AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER OBLIGATIONS ARISI NG OUT OF CARRYING ON BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND THE ITAT AGREED WITH VIEW T AKEN BY THE CIT-A THAT THAT THE PENALTY CHARGES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FOR I NFRINGEMENT OF ANY LAW. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO DID NOT GIVE ANY REASONS A S TO WHY HE HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH AMOUNT AS PENAL IN NATURE AND CIT-A EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE PAID PENALTY FOR NSE DURING THE COURSE OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, THE REFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE AFORESAID ORDER APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ON HAND. 16. WE ALSO FIND A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ANSWERED IN TH E CASE OF GOLDCREST CAPITAL MARKETS LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFIC ER BY ITAT, MUMBAI 'B BENCH REPORTED IN (2010) 130 TT J 0446 THE RELEVANT PORTION OF ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELO W: 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS CAREFULLY. THE SHORT QUESTION ARISING HERE IS THAT WHETHER VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF NSE LTD. BY ITS MEMBER S COULD BE TREATED AS AN OFFENCE OR AS AN ACT PROHIBITED BY LA W. IN CASE, IT CAN BE TERMED AS AN OFFENCE OR AN ACT PROHIBITED BY LAW, N O DOUBT SUCH EXPENDITURE WOULD FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S. 37(1) OF THE ACT. RULE. ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 7 1(1) OF THE NSE LTD CLEARLY BRINGS OUT THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSTITUTED AS A LIMITED COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND IT IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECURITIES CONTRACT (REGULATIONS) ACT, 1956 AND SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA ACT, 1992. THE P OWERS OF THE BOARD OF NSE LTD. TO MAKE BYE-LAWS, RULES AND REGUL ATIONS IS SUBJECT TO THE DIRECTIVES UNDER THESE ENACTMENTS AND ALSO T HE TRADING REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY RBI FROM TIME TO TIME. TH E APPOINTMENTS TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NSE LTD HAS TO BE DON E AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF NSE LTD. T HE BOARD IS HAVING POWER FOR PENALIZING ANY DISOBEDIENCE OR CONTRAVENT ION OF ITS RULES, BYE-LAWS AND REGULATIONS BY ITS MEMBER. NO DOUBT, T HE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF NSE HAS THEREIN NOMINEES OF SEBI, BUT, IN OUR OPINION, THIS BY ITSELF WOULD NOT MAKE NSE A STATUTORY BODY ON PAR WITH SEBI. MEMBERS OF NSE LTD ARE BOUND THROUGH THE ARTICLES O F ASSOCIATION TO ABIDE BY THE RULES, REGULATIONS AND BYE-LAWS OF THE NSE LTD. NEVERTHELESS, SUCH RULES, REGULATIONS AND BYE-LAWS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REGULATIONS FOR CONTROLLING THE INTERNAL INTER S E OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF THE MEMBERS AND NSE LTD. THOUGH EVERY MEM BER OF NSE LTD WOULD BE OBLIGED TO ABIDE BY SUCH RULES AND REGULAT IONS, A VIOLATION THEREOF CANNOT BE TREATED AS VIOLATION OF A STATUTO RY LAW OR RULE. FINES AND PENALTIES LEVIED FOR VIOLATION ON ACCOUNT OF U NFAIR TRADING PRACTICE AS SPECIFIED IN REGN. 4.6 OF THE NSE REGU LATIONS AND UN- BUSINESS LIKE CONDUCT AS SPECIFIED IN R. IV(4)(E) OF THE NSE RULES CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY RUL E OR LAW. THOUGH, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REFERRED R. 4C IN APPENDIX 2 22 TO SEBI RULES, 1992, THIS RULE ONLY SPECIFIES THE CONDITION TO BE SATISFIED FOR THE SEBI BOARD TO GRANT A CERTIFICATE TO A STOCK BROKER. IT IS TRUE THAT WORKING OF STOCK EXCHANGES CAN BE REGULATED BY SEBI UNDER THE SEBI ENACTMENT BUT VIOLATION OF RULES AND REGULATIONS FRAMED BY SU CH STOCK EXCHANGES CANNOT BE PER SE CONSIDERED AS VIOLATION OF ANY PRO VISION OF SEBI ENACTMENT. THE FINE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE DISCIPLINARY BENCH OF THE NSE WAS ADMITTEDLY FOR VIOLATION OF THE REGU LATION OF NSE LTD., AND NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT HOW SUCH VIOLATION OR BREACH OF REGULATIONS COULD B E TREATED ON PAR WITH THE BREACH OF A RULE UNDER THE SEBI ENACTMENT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATI ON OF LAW BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINE PAID WERE ONLY FOR NON-OBSERV ATION OF INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF STOCK EXCHANGE. WE DERIVE SUPPORT IN TAKING THIS VIEW FROM THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT VS. CFL LTD. IN ITA NO. 2656/MUM/2006 DE CIDED ON 5TH ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 8 DEC., 2008. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THERE WAS LEVY OF FI NE BY NSE FOR NON- OBSERVANCE OF BYE-LAWS AND RULES. AT PARA 6 OF THE ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 17. IN THE AFORESAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIN E PAID WERE ONLY FOR NON-OBSERVATION OF INTERNAL REGULATIONS OF STOCK EX CHANGE AND THE ITAT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT FINES AND PENALTIES LEVIED FOR VIOLATION ON ACCOUNT OF UNFAIR TRADING PRACTICE AS SPECIFIED IN REGN. 4.6 OF THE NSE REGULATIONS AND UN-BUSINESS LIKE CONDUCT AS SPECIFIED IN R. IV(4) (E) OF THE NSE RULES CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH VIOLATION OF A STATUTORY RUL E OR LAW AND TAKEN SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF ITAT CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSTT. CIT VS. CFL LTD. IN ITA NO. 2656/MUM/2006 DE CIDED ON 5TH DEC., 2008 WHERE THERE WAS LEVY OF FINE BY NSE FOR NON-OB SERVANCE OF BYE-LAWS AND RULES. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE PA ID PENALTY TO NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE CONDUCTING THEIR BUSINESS CONTROL UN DER SEBI DURING THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE IS NOT A STATUTORY BODY AND ANY PENALTIES OR FINES PAID AS THE CASE MAY BE UNDER REGULATIONS AND BYE-L AWS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS REGULATIONS FOR CONTROLLING THE INTERNAL OBLIGATION S AND THEREFORE, FACTS OF AFORESAID ORDER APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ON HAND. 18. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISIONS AND DISCUSSION ABOVE, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO-2 OF THE REVENUE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08/07 /20 16 ITA NO. 2272/KOL/2013-A-JM M/S.SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LTD 9 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.. THE APPELLANT/DEPARTMENT: THE INCOME TAX OFFIC ER, WARD 2(4), KOLKATA P-7 CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, 7 TH FL., KOLKATA-700 069. 2 THE RESPONDENT/ASESSEE: M/S. SOSHA CREDIT PVT. LT D 11 COMMERCE HOUSE, 2 G.C AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 013. 3 4. . /THE CIT, /THE CIT(A) 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR ** PRADIP SPS SD/- P.M. JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2272/KOL/2013 SD/- S S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI J JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 08 /07 /2016