EDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 7737/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 773719914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATHA SWAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVIKANT S PATH AK
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E , BENCH MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI SANJAY GARG , J M ./ ITA NO . 7737 / MUM/20 10 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 ) EDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD., 14 TH FLOOR, EXPRESS TOWERS , NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 VS. ADCIT RG.4(1), MUMBAI - 20 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A ACK 3792 N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND ./ ITA NO S. 7952 / MUM/20 10 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007 - 08 ) ADCIT RG.4(1), MUMBAI - 20 VS. EDELWEISS SECURITIES LTD., 14 TH FLOOR, EXPRESS TOWERS, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AACK 3792 N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAVIKANT S. PATHAK /REVENUE BY : MS. MANJUNATHA SWAMY / DATE OF HEARING : 10 /0 7 / 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/09 /2015 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : TH ESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) , MUMBAI , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08, IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT . ITA NO S . 7737&7952 / 10 2 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEA RD AND RECORD PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SHARE BROKER AND ALSO INVESTOR AND DEALER IN SECURITIES, STOCKS, SHARES, DERIVATIVES AND OTHER PERMISSIBLE MARKETABLE INST RUMENTS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE AO MADE ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF VSAT/LEASE LINE CHARGES ON THE PLEA O F NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX U/S.40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. THE AO ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A AND PENALTY PAID TO STOCK EXCHANGE, MAR K TO MARK ET LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS WAS ALSO DECLINED BY THE AO. 3. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO VSAT CHARGES, PART OF ADDITION MADE U/S.14A, PENALTY PAID TO SEBI. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MARK TO MARKET LOSS AND PART OF THE ADDITION MADE U/S.14A. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF CIT(A) BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 4. AT THE OUTSET LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF VSAT CHARGES FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY DECIDED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y.2006 - 07 & 2008 - 09, AS WELL AS THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ANGEL CAPITAL & DEBT MARKET LTD., IN ASSESSEES FAVO UR. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF VSAT/LEASE LINE CHARGES TO THE STOCK EXCHANGE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF ANGEL CAPITAL & DEBIT MARKET LTD., I . T APPEAL(L) NO. 475 OF 2011, DATED 28 - 7 - 2011. SIMILAR ITA NO S . 7737&7952 / 10 3 ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 VIDE ORDER DATED 28 - 3 - 2012 AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR. THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER : - 2. AS REGARD FIRST TWO QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE ITAT IS THAT VSAT AND LEASE LINE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO STOCK EXCHANGE WERE MERELY REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CHARGES PAID/PAYABLE BY THE STOCK EXCHANGE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION. SINCE THE VSAT AND LEASE LINE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME, DEDUCTING TAX WHILE MAKING SUCH PAYMENTS DO NOT ARISE. HENCE, QUESTION NOS.(A) AND (B) CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN REGARD TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VSAT/LEASE LINE CHARGES WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. 6. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.55,000/ - PAID TO SEBI. 7. LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANGEL CAPITAL & DEBIT MARKET LTD (SUPRA). THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IS AS UNDER : - 3. AS REGARDS QUESTION (C) IS CONCERNED THE FIN DING OF FACT RECORDED BY THE ITAT IS THAT THE AMOUNT PAID AS PENALTY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEES CLIENTS. S UCH PAYMENTS WERE NOT ON ACCOUN T OF ANY INFRACTION OF LAW AND HENCE ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN SUCH AS CA SE THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37 WOULD NOT APPLY. ACCORDINGLY QUESTION (C) RAISED BY THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. ITA NO S . 7737&7952 / 10 4 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN REGARD TO DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.55,000/ - 8. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR NOT DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF MARK TO MARKET LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS BY CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE CONTINGENT LOSS. WE FOUND THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITS FAVOUR. THERE ARE VARIOUS DECISION OF OTHER COORDINATE BENCHES WHEREIN EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WAS AS UNDER : - 1 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS OBSERVED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER AND THE REFERENCES MADE BY THE AR TO THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE CASE FROM THE PAPER BOOK. ACCORDING TO THE AR, C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE OF PROVISION FOR LOSS ON MARK TO MARKET, IS COVERED BY THE DECISION ARRIVED AT BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF I.T.A.T., MUMBAI IN THE ASSESSEE'S SISTER CONCERN, I.E. EDELWEISS CAPITAL LTD. MUMBAI IN ITA NO. 5324/M/2007 DATED 10 .10.2010, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER: - 'THE AFORESAID NOTE GIVES A FAIR PICTURE OF THE NATURE OF PROVISION. THE PROVISION IN SUBSTANCE HAS BEEN MADE TO COVER THE ANTICIPATED LOSS IN THE DERIVATIVES TRADING. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HOLDS DERIVATIVES AS ITS STOCK - IN - TRADE AND THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT IT FOLLOWS THE PRINCIPLE 'COST OR MARKET PRICE, WHICHEVER IS LOWER' IN VALUING THE DERIVATIVES. WHEN THE DERIVATIVES ARE HELD AS STOCK - IN - TRADE THEN WHATEVER RULES APPLY TO THE VALUATION OF STOCK - IN - TRADE WILL HAVE TO BE NECESSARILY APPLY TO THEIR VALUATION ALSO. IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION IN LAW THAT 'WHILE ANTICIPATED LOSS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK, ANTICIPATED PROFIT IN THE SHAPE OF APPRECI ATED VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK IS NOT BROUGHT INTO THE ACCOUNT, AS NO PRUDENT TRADER WOULD CARE TO SHOW INCREASED PROFIT BEFORE ITS REALIZATION. THIS IS THE THEORY UNDERLYING THE RULE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK IS TO BE VALUED AT COST OR MARKET PRICE WHICHEVE R IS THE LOWER, AND IT IS NOW GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS AN ESTABLISHED RULE OF COMMERCIAL PRACTICE AND ACCOUNTANCY'. THIS IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HELD IN THE CASE OF CHAINRUP SAMPATRAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX, WEST BENGAL (1953) 24 ITR 481 (SC), SPEAKING THROUGH HON'BLE JUSTICE PATANJALI SASTRI, THE THEN CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA (PAGE ITA NO S . 7737&7952 / 10 5 485 - 486 OF THE REPORT). AT PAGE 486 THE SUPREME COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT 'LOSS DUE TO A FALL IN PRICE BELOW COST IS ALLOWED EVEN IF SUCH LOSS HAS NOT BEEN ACTUALLY REALIZED'. QUOTING FROM THE CASE OF WHIMSTER & CO. VS. COMMISSIONERS OF INLAND REVENUE (1926) 12 TAX CASES 813, THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE PROFITS THAT ARE CHARGEABLE TO TAX ARE THOSE REALIZED IN THE YEAR AND THAT AN EXCEPTION IS RECOGNIZED WHERE A TRADER PURCHASED AND STILL HOLDS GOODS WHICH ARE FALLEN IN VALUE IN WHICH C A SE THOUGH NO LOSS HAS BEEN REALIZED NOR IT HAS OCCURRED, NEVERTHELESS AT THE CLOS E OF THE YEAR HE IS PERMITTED TO TREAT THESE GOODS AS OF THEIR MARKET VALUE. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT GOVERNS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IT IS TO THE ASSESSEE'S STRENGTH THAT THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA IN ITS GUIDELINE S HAVE ALSO APPROVED OF THE RULE OF PRUDENCE WHICH REALLY MEANS THAT WHILE ANTICIPATED LOSSES CAN BE TAKEN NOTE OF WHILE VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK, ANTICIPATED PROFITS CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED. THE ANTICIPATED LOSS, IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT CITED ABOVE, CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CONTINGENT LIABILITY. 8. THE LEARNED DR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED EACH SCRIP OF THE DERIVATIVES AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. WE DO NOT SEE HOW THIS CAN MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE. IF TH E DERIVATIVES HAVE BEEN TREATED AS STOCK - IN - TRADE THEN THERE IS NOTHING UNUSUAL IN THE ASSESSEE VALUING EACH DERIVATIVE BY APPLYING THE RULE COST OR MARKET WHICHEVER IS LOWER. 9. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE PROVISION AS REFLECT ING IN SUBSTANCE THE LOSS ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE GROUND IS ALLOWED.' 13. BESIDES THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE'S SISTER CONCERN, THE AR ALSO CITED THE CASES OF BANK OF BAHRAIN & KUWAIT, REPORTED IN 41 SOT 290 (MUM - SB) AND THE CASE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN WOODWORD GOVERNOR INDIA PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN 312 ITR 254. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AR THAT THE CASE SO HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A), I.E. THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMANI METAL AND ALLOYS LTD. 208 ITR 1017 (BOM BAY) HAD BEEN DISTINGUISHED ON FACTS. THE DR, AFTER THE BENCH, SUBMITTED ON UNTITLED EXTRACT WHEREIN IT MENTIONED THAT WHERE SUCH MONEY IS STOCK IN TRADE, THE LOSS HAD TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AS PER ACCORDING STANDARDS. 14. WE FIND THAT THE CASE SO HEAVILY REL IED UPON BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE FACTS WHICH ARE NO DIFFERENT FOOTINGS. IN THAT CASE, WHERE THE CONTRACT WAS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MMTC, NO RAW MATERIAL WAS PURCHASED DURING THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. THE RAW MATERIAL WAS RECEIVED IN THE NEXT ACCOUNTING YEAR. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, ON THESE FACTS HELD THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO MATERIAL EXCEPT THE PAPER CONTRACT, THE MATERIAL SO CONTRACTED COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS ASSESSEE'S STOCK IN TRADE. 15. IN THE CASE AT HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ENGAGING IN MARKED TO MARKET ON DAILY BASIS AND ON THE LAST DAY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, PROVISION IS MADE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AGAINST ANTICIPATED LOSS. 16. WE HAVE ALSO FOLLOWED THE GUIDANCE NOTE ON ACCOUNTING FOR EQUITY INDEX AND EQUITY STOCK FUTURES AND OPTIONS (AS PLACED IN THE ITA NO S . 7737&7952 / 10 6 APB), AS TO HOW THE ICAI HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE. WE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT THE ICAI HAS PRESCRIBED THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE PERSONS ENGAGED IN MARK TO MARKET ON EQUITY INDEX / STOCK FUTURES. IT IS ALSO IMPERAT IVE FOR THE COMPANIES TO STRICTLY FOLLOW THE STANDARD AND GUIDELINE FIXED BY ICAI. 17. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DETAILS AND THE EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE AR AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GUIDANCE NOTE ISSUED BY ICAI, WHICH THE COMPANIES HAVE TO FOLLOW, BE SIDES THE SEVERAL CASE LAWS CITED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND BY THE AR, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED THE PROVISION IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. 18. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A STRONG CASE TO MAK E PROVISION FOR LOSS ON MARK - TO - MARKET BASIS. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISIONS FOR LOSS ON MARK TO MARKET. 9. WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A, WE FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A.Y.2007 - 08, IN WHICH RULE 8D IS NOT APPLICABLE KEEPING VIEW THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE VIS - - VIS THE DECISIONS OF OTHER BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE DIVIDEND INCOME. 10. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED FOR DE LETIN G DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSACTIONS CHARGES PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. LD. AR PLACE DON RECORD LATEST DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN CASE OF MEHTA VAK IL & CO. PVT.LTD., ITA NO. 874 1/MUM/2011, ORDER DATED 13 - 3 - 2015, WHEREIN AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KOTAK SECURITIES LTD., 340 ITR 333 , THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO S . 7737&7952 / 10 7 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE TH ROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF MEHTA VAKIL AND CO. LTD.. THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE FOR TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID WITHOUT DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE WAS AS UNDER : - 3. WE NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD (2012)(340 ITR 333) THAT THE TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE STOCK EXCHANGES CONSTITUTE FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES AND THE SAME IS LIABLE FOR TAX DEDUCT ION AT SOURCES U/S 194J OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE THEREIN PLEADED THAT IT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT NO TAX WAS DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PAYING THE TRANS ACTION CHARGES FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE SAME TO TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE CLAIM. HENCE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, UNDER THESE PECULIAR FACTS, HELD AS UNDER: - HOWEVER, SINCE BOTH THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE WERE UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF FOR NEARLY A DECADE THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE 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 CONSEQUENTL Y DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION CHARGES CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE ABOVE CONCLUSION IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE BOTH T HE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE INSERTION OF SECTION 194J IN THE YEAR 1995 TILL 2005 PROCEEDED ON THE FOOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AND IN FACT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION, I.E. FROM A.Y. 2 006 - 07 THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE WHILE CREDITING THE TRANSACTION CHARGES TO THE ACCOUNT OF STOCK EXCHANGE. 4. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS RENDERED ON 21 - 10 - 2011 AND THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AY 2008 - 09. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT, PRIOR TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN HOLDING THAT THE TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE FROM THE TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID TO THE STOCK EXCHANGES. HENCE, IT CAN BE SEEN T HAT 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 LTD (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 CHARGES SUBSEQUENT TO ITA NO S . 7737&7952 / 10 8 THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE LD A.R ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE B ENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL 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 IDENTICAL VIEW. HENCE, FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE UPHOLD THE DECISION OF LD CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SAME, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH, WE CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSACTION CHARGES PAID WITHO UT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11/0 9 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( SANJAY GARG ) ( . . ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 11/ 09 /201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6 . / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//