VIBRANT SECURITIES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7158/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0578 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES F MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 7158/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 M/S.VIBRANT SECURITIES PVT.LTD., 103-A, PODAR CHAMBERS, S.A.BRELVI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2)(2), AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ! ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCV 8287E ( !$ / APPELLANT ) .. ( %&!$ / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI DHARMESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PAWAN KUMAR BEERLA ( ) * / DATE OF HEARING : 22/04/2015 ( ) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/04/2015 / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) -8 MUMBAI DATED 28/9/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: (1) IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. AO ERRED IN DISLLOWING THE TRADE / TRANSACTION CHARGES OF RS. 4 4,76,392/ - FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TDS AND THE LD. CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E SAID DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE PROPERLY . . / ITA NO. 7158/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 2 (A) THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF TH AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194J ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SAID TRADE / TRANSACTION CHARGES TILL THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VERSES KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (340 ITR 333), WAS PRONOUNCED. (B) THAT THE STOCK EXCHANGE FOLLOWS THE PRACTICE OF DIRECTLY DEBITING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT FOR TRADE / TRANSACTI ON CHARGES LEAVING NO ROOM FOR THE APPELLANT TO DEDUCT ANY TAX AT SOURCE AT ALL. (C) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED THE TRADE TR ANSACTION CHARGES OF RS. 3341236/- AS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROF IT AND LOSS A/C, SINCE, THESE ARE THE TRANSACTION CHARGES OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH WERE INITIALLY DIRECTLY DEBITED BY THE STOCK EXCHAN GE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND WERE REIMBURSED BY THE CUSTOMERS LATERON. HENCE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 3341236/- NEED NOT BE DISALLOWED SINCE APPELLANT HAS NOT CLAIMED THE SAID AMOUNT AS A BUSI NESS EXPENDITURE, THE SAME BEING THE EXPENDITURE OF THE CUSTOMERS OF THE APPELLANT. (D) THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE TRADE / TRAN SACTION CHARGES OF RS. 1135155/- AS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT A ND LOSS A/C. BUT SINCE, THE STOCK EXCHANGE HAS DIRECTLY DEBITED THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT FOR RS. 1135155/- TOWARDS TRANSACTION CHA RGES OF THE APPELLANT THERE IS NO AMOUNT OUTSTANDING / PAYABLE AS ON 31ST OF MARCH, 2009. SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE TO THE EXPENSE PAYA BLE AS ON 31ST MARCH. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS V. ADDL. CIT (16 ITR (TRIB) 1 VIZAG)) (E) THAT THE AFORESAID TECHNICAL ERROR DOES NOT RES ULT IN LOSS TO THE REVENUE SINCE, STOCK EXCHANGE HAS FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009- 10 DECLARING THE INCOME FROM TRADE / TRANSACTION CH ARGES AND PAID APPROPRIATE TAX THEREON AND HENCE, THE APPELLANT SH OULD NOT BE PUNISHED FOR SUCH TECHNICAL ERROR WHICH TOO WAS BEYOND THE C ONTROL OF THE APPELLANT BEING UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF. (2) THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADDITIONS AND DISA LLOWANCES AMOUNTING TO RS. 4476392/- MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME MAY BE DE LETED. 2. TRANSACTION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.44,76,392/- WERE DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS FOLLOWING THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. KOTAK SECURITIES 340 ITR 333(BOM). RELYING UPON THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH . / ITA NO. 7158/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 3 COURT, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOW ANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE. THOSE OBSERVATIONS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: HOWEVER, SINCE BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE WERE UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF FOR NEARLY A DECADE THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTI BLE AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTING THE TAX AT SOURCE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AN D CONSEQUENTLY DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I A) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION CHARGES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF TH E PRESENT CASE, WHERE BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE INSERTION O F SECTION 194J IN THE YEAR 1995 TILL 2005 PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO. DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AND IN FACT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, I.E., FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE WHILE CREDITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO T HE ACCOUNT OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE . 3. FURTHER, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TRI BUNAL IN OTHER DECISIONS RELYING ON THOSE OBSERVATIONS HAS DELETED THE DISA LLOWANCE AND REFERENCE IN THIS REGARD WAS MADE TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF IDBI CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LTD. VS. DCIT, ORDER DATED 18/2/2015 PASSE D IN ITA NO.618/MUM/2012, COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PG.59 T O 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION S: HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT SECTION 194J WAS INSERTED W.E.F.1/7/1995 AND TILL ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT SECT ION 194J WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PAYMENT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES AND ACCORDING LY DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1995 TO 2005 NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE NOR THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ANY OBJECTION. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IF BOTH THE PARTIES FOR NEARLY A DECA DE PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT SECTION 194J IS NOT ATTRACTED, THEN IN THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DEDUCTI NG TAX AT SOURCE UNDER SECTION 194J OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, NO ACTION COULD B E TAKEN UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 3.1 FROM THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. MEH TA VAKIL & COMPANY PVT. LTD., DATED 13/3/2015, COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO FILED AT PAGE 66 TO 70 OF THE PAPER BOOK, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ONS: 4. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT W AS RENDERED ON 21- 10-2011 AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AY 2008-09. WE H AVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT, . / ITA NO. 7158/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 4 PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN HOLDING THAT THE TAX WAS NOT DED UCTIBLE AT SOURCE FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID TO THE STOCK EXCHANGES. HE NCE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US ALSO, WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF IN THIS REGARD AND HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES L TD (SUPRA) SHOULD ALSO BE EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGE S SUBSEQUENT TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE LD A.R ALSO BROUG HT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF M/S MAPE SECURITIES PVT LTD (ITA NO.842/MUM/2012 DATED 24.11 .2014 RELATING TO AY 2008- 09), WHEREIN ALSO THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS TAKEN I DENTICAL VIEW. HENCE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LD CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 3.2 REFERRING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS AND THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE OF THE EVENTS, IT WAS THE CASE OF LD. AR THAT DISALL OWANCE DESERVES TO THE DELETED. SR.NO. DATE PARTICULARS 1. 15.11.2007 RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y 2007-0 8 2. 14.01.2008 RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y 2006-0 7 28.11.2008 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DISALLOWING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES OF RS.26,30,432/- FOR A.Y. 2006 -07 3. 22.02.2009 DECISION OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (25 SOT 440) 4. 15.07.2009 ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ALLOWING THE DEDU CTION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 5. 25.09.2009 RETURN OF INCOME FILE FOR A.Y 2009-10 6. 23.11.2009 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES OF RS.36,52,820/- FOR A.Y 2007- 08. 7. 07.06.2010 ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ALLOWING THE DEDU CTION ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION CHARGES FOR A.Y 2007-08. 8. 18.06.2010 ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT UPHOLDING THE DEDUCTION OF TRANSACTION CHARGES FOLLOWING ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (25 SOT 440) FOR A .Y 2006-07. 9. 21.10.2011 DECISION OF HONBLE MUMBAI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. (340 ITR 333). 10. 26.12.2011 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES OF RS.4476392/- FOR A.Y 2009-10 . 3.3 IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT AS NO THING WAS PAYABLE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE I N VIEW OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS VS. ACIT, 136 ITD 23 AND SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HONBLE ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES (P). LTD., 38 TAX MANN.COM 77(ALLH) ON WHICH . / ITA NO. 7158/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 5 SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS ALSO REJECTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS POSITION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. KEDIA SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT VIDE ORDER DATED 2 2/12/2014, IN ITA NO.187/MUM/2013 AND REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE OBSER VATIONS OF THE BENCH IN PARA 6 & 7 OF THE ORDER. COPY OF THIS DECISION IS FILED AT PAGE 104 TO 108 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS ARE AS U NDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE LAST ALTERNATIVE GROUND, I.E. WHEN THE PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER SECTION 40(A)(IA) CAN BE ATTRACTED? ON THIS ISSUE THIS VERY BENCH, IN THE CASE OF AMIT NARESH SHAH (ITA NO. 4154/MUM/2013), HAD TAKEN A CONSISTENT STAND THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT, IN THE FORM OF DISMISSAL OF REVENUES SLP IN THE CASE OF VECTOR SHIPPING SERVIC ES (P) LTD. SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE WITH REFERENCE TO PAYMENTS ALREADY MADE SINCE THE EXPRESSION PAYABLE HAS TO BE SATISFIED FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA). THE BENCH, IN THE AFORECITED DECISION, OBSERVED IN THIS REGARD AS UNDER: - 4. BEFORE US, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) STAT ED THAT ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DELIVERED IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & T RANSPORTS (SUPRA)HAS BEEN KEPT IN ABEYANCE OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, THAT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAD TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. WE HAVE HEARD THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT EXPENSES RELAT ED TO PROFESSIONAL FEES, ADVERTISEMENT AND MANAGEMENT WERE DEBITED IN P&L AC COUNT, THAT SAME WERE PAID. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT SHOULD BE MADE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEA L IN THE CASE OF JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE (I.T.T.A. NO. 352 OF 2014- DT. 24.06.2014) THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT HAS CLARIFIED THE ISSUE OF INTER IM STAY GRANTED BY IT IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA). WE WILL L IKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID ORDER AND SAME READS AS UNDER: '4. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT UNTIL AND UNLESS THE DE CISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IS UPSET BY THIS COURT, IT BINDS SMALLER BENC H AND COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL, AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY MR. NARASIMHA SARMA, LEARNED C OUNSEL, TO REMAND ON THE GROUND OF PENDENCY ON THE SAME ISSUE BEFORE THI S COURT, OVERLOOKING AND OVERRULING, BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, THE DECIS ION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. WE SIMPLY SAY THAT IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UND ER QUASI JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE'. FROM THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, IT IS CLEAR THAT UNTIL AND UNLESS THE DECISION OF MARILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT (SUPRA) IS REVERSED BY THE COURT, IT IS BINDING ON ALL THE BENCHES OF THE TRIB UNAL. WE FIND THAT HON'BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE MANDATES THAT THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BY OTHER BENCHES. AS ON TODAY, T HE STAY ORDER GRANTED BY THE HONBLE COURT HAS BEEN VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IS BINDING ON OTHER BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE FAA WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER O F MARILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT (SUPRA). CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CLARIFICATION ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ON 24.06.2014 IN THE CASE OF JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE, WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE FAA. . / ITA NO. 7158/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 6 7. REVERTING TO THE FACTS ON HAND, THE TAX AUTHORIT IES HAD NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID DEPOSITORY CHARGES WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE TAX AND TAXES ARE ALREADY PAID BY THE RECIPIENT [SEE PARA 3.3 & 3.4 OF THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE CIT(A)]. SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY PAID AND THE TAXES ARE PAID BY THE RECI PIENT, IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MARILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA) IS APPLICABLE AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH ES (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE WRONGLY INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 40(A)(IA) IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TAX A UTHORITIES DISALLOWING `6,27,423/-. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION ON MERIT IT IS NOT NECESS ARY FOR US TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER ASPECTS URGED BEFORE US SINCE THEY WILL BE OF ACADEMIC IMPO RTANCE. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS NOT CALLED FOR IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT (SUPRA), WHICH IN TURN WAS BASED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VECTOR SHIPPIN G SERVICES (P) LTD. THUS, IT WAS PLEADED THAT IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE SH OULD BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY AO & LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND THEIR CONTENT IONS HAVE CAREFULLY BEEN CONSIDERED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SEQUENCE OF THE DA TES WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ACCORD ING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD.(SUPRA) WHICH IS RE PRODUCED IN THE ORDER WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND DISALLOWANCE DESERVES TO BE DE LETED. SIMILARLY, DISALLOWANCE ALSO DESERVES TO BE DELETED ON THE GRO UND OF APPLICABILITY OF SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPP ING & TRANSPORTS (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BYTHE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL AND THE RELEVANT PORTION FROM THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. KEDIA SH ARES & STOCK BROKERS HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED. 5.1 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DELETE THE DIS ALLOWANCE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/04/2015 ( 0 1 2 22/04/2015 ( SD/- SD/- ( / N.K.BILLAIYA ) ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 7158/MUM/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 7 MUMBAI; 1 DATED 22/04/2015 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&!$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 4) / CIT 5. 56 %)78 , * 78 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, & 5) %) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . . ./ VM , SR. PS