ASST CIT 4(2), V. PRATIBHUTI VINITIT LTD,

MA 608/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8793 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRADIP KEDIA
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 608/MUM/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2749/MUM/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) ACIT, CIRCLE 4(2) M/S. PRATIBHUTI VINIHIT LTD. ROOM NO. 642, 6TH FLOOR 15A-28, RAJABAHADUR MANSION AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD VS. 3RD FLOOR, BOMBAY SAMACHAR MARG MUMBAI 400020 FORT, MUMBAI 400001 PAN - AAACP 6298 A APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SHRI P.C. MAURYA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRADIP KEDIA DATE OF HEARING: 15.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.06.2012 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. BY THIS APPLICATION THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. 25 SOT 440 IS NOT APPLICABLE WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTIBIL ITY OF TAX ON TRANSACTION CHARGES WHEREAS THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONCLU DED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT OF MUMBAI, WHICH IS APPLICABLE ONLY TO ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO 2006-07. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE IT AT C BENCH MUMBAI SUFFERS FROM A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE, IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL, CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U NDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF VSAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES PAID T O THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND NO SPECIFIC GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL WITH REGARD TO TRANSACTION CHARGES AND HENCE THE BENCH HAD NO OCCA SION TO CONSIDER THIS ISSUE. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY TH E REVENUE IT WAS SPECIFIED, MA NO. 608/MUM/2011 M/S. PRATIBHUTI VINIHIT LTD. 2 IN PARA 5, THAT WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF NON-DED UCTION OF TAX ON LEASELINE CHARGES AND VSAT CHARGES, THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPT ED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT; THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION IS LIMITED TO THE NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX ON TRANSACTION CHARGES, WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE BEFORE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A ND THUS THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUN AL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, SPECIFIC GROUND WAS NEITHER RAISED BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL NOR ARGUED BY THE LEARNED D.R. AT THE TIME OF HEARING O F THE APPEAL AND HENCE THE BENCH DISPOSED OF THE MATTER VIS--VIS VSAT AND LEASELINE CHARGES ONLY. THEREFORE THE REVENUE IS NOT CORRECT IN ITS CONTENT ION THAT THE TRANSACTION CHARGES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE 2012. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 15 TH JUNE 2012 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 8, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 4, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.