DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s MBL & Co. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2478/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4222 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PEEYUSH SONKAR SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Section: 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E : NEW DELHI) SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2478/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) DCIT, CIRCLE 6 (1), VS. M/S. MBL & CO. LIMITED, NEW DELHI. M-15, 1 ST FLOOR, M-BLOCK MARKET GREATER KAILASH II, NEW DELHI. (PAN : AADCM8394F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH GUPTA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI PEEYUSH SONKAR, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS)-IX, NEW DELHI DATED 29.3.2010. THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) IS ERRON EOUS & CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWIN G REBATE U/S 88E BEFORE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.1 THE LD. CIT (A) IGNORED THE FACT THAT AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB REBATE U/S 88E IS NOT A LLOWABLE FOR ARRIVING AT THE BOOK PROFIT. ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTI NG THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUST STT THE DISALLOWANCE MA DE U/S 14A OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR A MEND ANY GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF T HE HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A MEMBER OF NATIONAL STO CK EXCHANGE AND BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE DOING BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT AND ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS. THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WAS FILED ON 30.9.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.8,12,68,281/- ON WHICH THE TAX PAYABLE WAS RS.2,43,80,484/-. AGAINS T THIS TAX PAYABLE, THE REBATE U/S 88E PERTAINING TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX (STT) WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE STT CREDIT AVAILABLE TO THE ASS ESSEE WAS RS.3,37,07,299/-. THIS CLAIM WAS REFUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHI CH THE CIT (A) HAS GRANTED BY HOLDING AS UNDER :- 3.11 I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. BOTH THE AO AND THE LD. COUNSEL HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 115JB, SECTION 87(1) AND SECTION 88E OF THE ACT. THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS HOW TO WORK OUT THE TAX LIABI LITY OF THE COMPANY UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND UNDE R SECTION 115JB AND WHAT ARE THE REBATES ALLOWABLE TO THE APP ELLANT IN COMPUTING THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX WORKED OUT AS PE R NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND AS PER SECTION 115JB. SEC TION 115JB IS A SPECIAL PROVISION FOR PAYMENT OF TAX BY CERTAI N COMPANIES AND READS AS BELOW: ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 3 'SECTION 115JB(1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINE D IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, WHERE IN THE CA SE OF AN ASSESSEE, BEING A COMPANY, THE INCOME-TAX, PAYABLE ON THE TOTAL AS COMPUTED UNDER THIS ACT IN RESPECT OF ANY PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, [2007], IS LESS THAN [TEN PER CENT] OF ITS BOOK PROFIT, [SUCH BOOK PROFIT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE TOTAL INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUC H TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME-TAX AT THE RAT E OF [TEN PER CENT]. THUS, SECTION 115JB OF THE ACT IS A 'DEEMING PROVIS ION' WHICH PROVIDES FOR LEVY OF MINIMUM ALTERNATE TAX (MAT) ON THE BASIS OF BOOK PROFIT OF A COMPANY. IT WAS BASICALLY INTRO DUCED TO RECOVER A SHARE OF TAX FROM DISTRIBUTABLE PROFITS I N CASE OF COMPANIES NOT PAYING THE TAX AS PER NORMAL PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT AND YET DISTRIBUTING THE DIVIDENDS. ACCORDINGLY , FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION WHAT WAS TARGETED WAS TO AR RIVE AT DISTRIBUTABLE PROFITS. 'BOOK PROFIT' WAS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION AS PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION WORKED OUT AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956. FROM THIS ANALYS IS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB WOULD BE ATTRACTED IF THE COMPANY IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY TAX AS PER THE NOR MAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR IF ITS TAX LIABILITY IS LE SS THAN TEN PERCENT OF ITS BOOK PROFITS COMPUTED AS PRESCRIBED IN SECTI ON 115JB. IN SUCH A SITUATION, A CORPORATE ASSESSEE WILL BE LIAB LE TO PAY TEN PERCENT OF ITS BOOK PROFIT AS INCOME-TAX. TO ARRIVE AT THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSES OF SE CTION 115JB(1), THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS MANDATED BY SECTI ON 115JB(2) TO PREPARE ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956. EXPLANA TION [1] OF SECTION 115JB LAYS DOWN THE MANNER IN WHICH THE 'BO OK PROFIT' IS TO BE WORKED OUT FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT . ON A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115 JB, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE TAX LIABILITY OF A COMPAN Y UNDER THIS SECTION WILL ARISE IF AND ONLY IF THE TAX PAYABLE B Y THE COMPANY ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 4 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT IS LESS THAN THE T AX PAYABLE ON THE 'BOOK PROFIT' CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB. THE CONCEPT OF 'TAX DUE' IS NOT RELE VANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 115JB. WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115J-SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO C ERTAIN COMPANIES- IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES VS. CIT [200 2] 255 ITR 273, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT WHILE COMP UTING INCOME UNDER SECTION 115J, THE AO HAS ONLY THE POWE R OF EXAMINING WHETHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE CERTIFI ED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT AS HAVING BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANIES ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO GO BEHIND THE NET PROFIT SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT EXC EPT TO THE EXTENT PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115J. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMPANY HAS WORKED OUT TAX PAYABLE ON DEEMED TOTAL INCOME U/S 115JB AT RS.81,75,847/- ON BOOK PROFIT AS PER SECTION 115JB OF RS.8,17,58,465 AND T AX PAYABLE AT NORMAL RATES AT RS.2,43,80,484/- ON INCOME AS PER N ORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF RS.8,12,68,281/-. THE CALC ULATION OF THE COMPANY WITH REGARD TO MAT OR INCOME TAX AT NORMAL RATE HAS NOT BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE AO. IN TERMS OF SECTION 115JB, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT TAX PAYABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED UNDER THIS ACT BEING RS.2,43,80,484/- IS MORE THAN TAX COMPUTED ON THE 'BOOK PROFITS' AT RS.81,75,847/-. 3.12 NOW THE QUESTION THAT REMAINS IS WHETHER THE A CTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB ARE ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT EVEN THOUGH THE TAX PAYAB LE ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS COMPUTED UNDER THIS ACT BEING RS.2, 43,80,484/- IS MORE THAN THE TAX COMPUTED ON THE 'BOOK PROFITS' AT RS.81,75,847/-. THE AO HELD THAT THE INCOME TAX COM PUTED AS PER NORMAL PROVISION OF THE I.T. ACT WAS NIL ON ACC OUNT OF DEDUCTION OF STT OF RS.3,37,07,299/- ALLOWABLE AS A REBATE U/S 88E OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE INCOME TAX (MAT) ON BOOK PROFIT WAS RS.81,76,903/- AND REBATE U/S 88E ON ACCOUNT OF STT PAID WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AGAINST TAX MAT. I AM UNABLE TO A PPRECIATE ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 5 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS TAKEN BY THE A O TO ARRIVE AT THIS UNDERSTANDING. WHILE INTRODUCING THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004, IN HIS SPEECH TO THE PARLIAMENT, THE FINANCE MINISTER PROPOSED TH E LEVY OF SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS TAX TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMA TIC ISSUE OF TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS ON SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. HE STATED AS BELOW: '111. CAPITAL GAINS TAX IS ANOTHER VEXED ISSUE. WHE N APPLIED TO CAPITAL MARKET TRANSACTIONS, THE ISSUE B ECOMES MORE COMPLEX. QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE DEFINITIONS OF LONG-TERM AND SHORT-TERM, AND THE DIFFERENTIAL TAX TREATMENT METED TO THE TWO KINDS O F GAINS. THERE ARE NO EASY ANSWERS, BUT I HAVE DECIDED TO MA KE A BEGINNING BY REVAMPING TAXES ON SECURITIES TRANSACT IONS. OUR FOUNDING FATHERS HAD WISELY INCLUDED ENTRY 90 I N THE UNION LIST IN THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUT ION OF INDIA. TAKING A CUE FROM THAT ENTRY, I PROPOSE TO A BOLISH THE TAX ON LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS ALTOGETHER. INSTEAD, I PROPOSE TO LEVY A SMALL TAX ON TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES ON STOCK EXCHANGE S. THE RATE WILL BE 0.15 PER CENT OF THE VALUE OF SECURITY . THUS, A TRANSACTION INVOLVING SECURITIES VALUED AT, SAY, RS.100,000 WILL NOW BEAR A SMALL TAX OF RS.150. THE TAX WILL BE LEVIED ON THE BUYER. IN THE CASE OF SHORT-T ERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SECURITIES, I PROPOSE TO REDUCE THE RATE OF TAX TO A FLAT RATE OF 10 PER CENT. MY CALCULATIO N SHOWS THAT THE NEW TAX REGIME WILL BE A WIN-WIN SITUATION FOR ALL CONCERNED' THE CHARGING PROVISION OF STT IS SECTION 111A. THE PROVISION READS AS BELOW : 111A. (1) WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INC LUDES ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS ', ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A SHORT-TERM CAPITAL A SSET, BEING AN EQUITY SHARE IN A COMPANY OR A UNIT OF AN EQUITY ORIENTED FUND AND - (A) THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SUCH EQUITY SHARE OR UNIT IS ENTERED INTO ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 6 WHICH CHAPTER VII OF THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004 COMES INTO FORCE; AND (B) SUCH TRANSACTION IS CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX UNDER THAT CHAPTER, SUB SECTION 3 OF SECTION OF SECTION 111 A PROVIDES FOR THE REBATE TO BE ALLOWED FROM THE TAX ON TOTAL INCOME A ND READS AS BELOW : 'WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE REBATE UNDER SECTION 88 SHALL BE ALLOWED FROM THE INCOME-TAX ON THE TOTAL INCOME AS REDUCED BY SUCH CAPITAL GAINS.' FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT SIT WAS INTRODUCED TO ADDRESS THE VEXED QUESTIONS OF THE DEFINITIONS OF ION -TERM AND SHORT- TERM CA ITAL GAINS ARISING FROM CAPITAL MARKET TRAN SACTIONS, AND THE DIFFERENTIAL TAX TREATMENT METED TO THE TWO KIN DS OF GAINS. IT IS TAX LEVIED UPON THE BUYER, CALCULATED AT THE PRE SCRIBED RATE AND COLLECTED BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE. THE TAX SO LE VIED AND COLLECTED IS ALLOWED AS A REBATE U/S 88E WHILE COMP UTING THE TAX ON TOTAL INCOME IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8 7. THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN MAT AND TAX AS PER NORMAL PROVISI ONS HAS NOT BEEN TOUCHED UPON IN EITHER IN THE BUDGET SPEEC H OR IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. 3.13 IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT CHARGING SECTIONS OR TAXING PROVISIONS NEED TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY. IF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE AO IS ACCEPTED, IT WILL LEAD TO A SITUATION WHE RE THE APPELLANT COMPANY WILL END UP BEING CHARGED TO TAX AT A RATE WHICH IS HIGHER THAN WHAT IT IS LIABLE TO PAY AS TA X ON THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THIS WAS SURELY NOT THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN SECTION 115JB AND WHEN IT APPROVED THE PROVISIONS REGARDING SECURITIE S TRANSACTION TAX. TO PUT IT IN NUMBERS, THE AO'S INT ERPRETATION IMPLIES THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS LIABLE TO TAX OF RS.2,43,83,654/- AS PER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE AC T, HOWEVER, SIMPLY BECAUSE AFTER REBATE U/S 88E ON ACCOUNT OF S TT PAYMENT, THERE IS NO TAX DUE AND PAYABLE BY THE COM PANY IT ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 7 SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO MAT AT 10% OF ITS BOOKS PROF ITS AMOUNTING TO RS.81,76,903/- IN ADDITION TO THE NORM AL TAX PAYABLE AND PAID BY THE COMPANY. TAKEN TOGETHER THE TAX PAYMENT BY THE COMPANY UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS AND UNDER MAT TOTALS UP-TO RS.3,25,60,557/- (RS.2,43,83,654 + RS.81,76,903). THE IMPLICATION OF SUCH AN INTERPRET ATION IS THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS SUBJECTED TO TAXATION AT A RATE HIGHER THAN EVEN THE RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER NORMAL PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. IT IS MY CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS WAS NOT THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE EITHER WITH REGARD TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115JB OR WITH REGARD TO IMPOSITION OF STT. IN LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLO WED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MAT. 4.0 GROUND NO.3 IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF TAX ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,566/- MADE U/S 14A OF THE I.T . ACT. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TAX WAS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST STT PART OF WHICH STILL REMAIN UNADJUSTED, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO LEVY TAX ON THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.10,566/-. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR MERIT CONSI DERATION. THE TOTAL TAX PAYABLE BY THE APPELLANT UNDER NORMAL PROVISIONS IS RS.2,43,83,654/- WHEREAS STT PAID BY THE APPELLA NT IS RS.3,37,07,299/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT IS TO BE ALL OWED CREDIT FOR STT PAYMENT AGAINST ANY TAX LIABILITY, THE LEVY OF TAX ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,566/- IS NOT IN ORDER. THE A .O. IS DIRECTED TO ADJUST STT ALREADY PAID BY THE APPELLAN T. 3. LEARNED DR FAIRLY CONCEDED ON THE PROPOSITION OF LEARNED AR THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF ITAT, BANGALORE A BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. HORIZON CAPITAL LIMIT ED VS. ITO IN ITA NO.592 (BNG)/10 DATED 16.7.2010. IN THIS ORDER, THE ITAT BANGALORE A BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 6. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVING CONSID ERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WHETHER THE REBATE OF STT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWABLE FRO M THE ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 8 INCOME TAX COMPUTED AGAINST THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUT ED UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE TERM 'TOTAL INCOME' HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS 'THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 5, COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN THIS ACT.' SECTION 5 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DEFINES THE SCOPE OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF A RESIDENT OR A NON-RESIDENT PERSON. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE COMPUTED UNDER THE REGULAR PROVI SIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IN THE CASE OF A COMPANY I T CAN BE ARRIVED AT BOTH UNDER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND UNDER THE DEEMING PROVISION UNDER SECTION 1 15JB OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE INCOME TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UNDER REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IS LESS THAN 7 % OF THE BOOK PROFIT PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COMPANIES ACT, THE HIGHER OF THE TAX I.E. THE BOOK PROFIT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSES SEE SHALL BE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX AT THE SPECIFIED RATE. WHE N WE LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 87 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WE FIND THAT THE REBATE IS TO BE GRANTED FROM THE AMOU NT OF INCOME TAX CHARGEABLE ON THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE INCOME TAX IS COMPUTED AFTER ARRIVING AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SECTION 87 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE TOTAL INCOME COMPUTED UND ER THE REGULAR PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR UNDER SECTION 115J B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. EVEN THOUGH THE SUB SECTION ( 1) OF SECTION 115JB STARTS WITH THE NON-ABSTANTE CLAUSE, 'NOT WITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVIS ION OF THIS ACT', WE FIND THAT IT IS ONLY FOR THE COMPUTATION O F THE TOTAL INCOME AND THE SUB SECTION (5) OF SECTION 115JB PRO VIDES FOR A SAVING CLAUSE THAT THE REST OF THE PROVISIONS OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS, REBATE, ETC THE OTHER P ROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHALL APPLY. THEREFORE IT IS CLE AR THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTIONS 87 AND 88A TO 88E ALSO APPLY AFTER THE TOTAL INCOME IS COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115JB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES THE INCOME FROM THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS, TH E ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE STT PAID BY HIM IN RESPECT OF THE TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIO NS ENTERED INTO IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ITA NO.2478/DEL/2010 9 ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS THUS ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE REBATE UNDER SECTION 88E FOR THE S TT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR HAS FAILED TO BRING TO OUR NOTICE AN Y CONTRARY DECISION IN THIS REGARD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAW. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION (SUPRA) OF THE ITAT, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DECIDED AGA INST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT UPON THE SAME, THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS UPHELD AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE INVOLVING THIS ISSUE ARE REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : THE 21 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2011 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT (A)-IX, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.