Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: form 3cd :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: due date for vat payment :: VAT Audit :: VAT RATES :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

ACIT, Circle 4(2) M/s. Visaria Securities P. Ltd. Room No. 642, 6th Floor 301-A, Commerce House Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 140 N.M. Road, Fort Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400023
September, 20th 2013
               IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                          "F" Bench, Mumbai

                Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President
            and Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Accountant Member

                          ITA No. 2271/Mum/2012
                          (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

     ACIT, Circle 4(2)                   M/s. Visaria Securities P. Ltd.
     Room No. 642, 6th Floor         Vs. 301-A, Commerce House
     Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road           140 N.M. Road, Fort
     Mumbai 400020                       Mumbai 400023
                                         PAN - AAACV7721L
              Appellant                           Respondent

                   Appellant by:      Shri S. Ghosh
                   Respondent by:     Shri Anuj Kisnadwala

                   Date of Hearing:       10.09.2013
                   Date of Pronouncement: 10.09.2013

                                  ORDER

Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

     This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the
CIT(A)-8, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2008-09.

2.    The following grounds were urged by the Revenue: -

     "1. i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,
         the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the rebate u/s. 88E from the tax
         payable on book profit.
          ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law,
          the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing Rebate u/s. 88E while
          computing tax liability under the MAT provision and in making
          the comparison between the tax determined under the normal
          provision of the I.T. Act and provision u/s. 115JB for the purpose
          of determining applicability of the provisions of section 115JB on
          gross before allowing Rebate u/s. 88E of the Income Tax Act,
          1961.
     2.   On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
          impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to law to be set
          aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored."




3.    Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. Assessee
is a private limited company engaged in the business of share broking and
                                        2                 ITA No. 2271/Mum/2012
                                                       M/s. Visaria Securities P. Ltd.

share trading. For the year under consideration it declared total income of
`9,09,97,890/- under the normal provisions of the Act and the same was
processed accordingly. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny wherein
the AO made certain disallowances and also calculated the tax liability
under MAT provisions. However, while deciding the tax liability the AO
compared the tax liability under the normal provisions after considering the
rebate under section 88E with the tax liability under MAT provisions without
considering the rebate under section 88E. Because of such calculation the
tax liability under MAT provisions was higher than the tax computed on the
income calculated under normal provisions of the I.T. Act. According to the
assessee it was entitled to rebate under section 88E even while computing
the tax liability under MAT provisions and hence an appeal was preferred
before the CIT(A). Reliance was placed upon various decisions of the ITAT to
submit that rebate under section 88E of the Act is available even while
computing the tax under MAT provisions (115JB of the Act).

4.    The learned CIT(A) accepted the contentions of the assessee by
observing, in para 4.3 of the order, as under: -

"4.3 I have considered the contention of the AO as well as of the Ld. AR. I
find that identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal. In the
cases of M/s. Horizon Capital ltd. and M/s. MBL & Co. Ltd. (Supra),
under identical fact that the present assessee had also made payment of
STT and it's total income included income from transactions on which STT
was paid. The only reason stated by the AO for not allowing rebate u/s.
88E from tax payable u/s. 115JB or computing tax payable under normal
provisions after reducing the amount of rebate u/s. 88E from such tax for
comparing the tax payable normally or u/s. 115JB are that STT was not
income tax and provisions of section 115JB were non-obstante deeming
fictions. Further identical to the contentions raised by the appellant, it was
submitted before the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s. Horizon
Capital Ltd. (Supra), that Form No. 6 the format of Income tax return
prescribed by the Department of Income tax provided for rebate u/s. 88E
from higher of income tax under regular provisions of the act or under
section 115JB of the Act. Thus, I find that the relevant facts and
circumstances as well as the statements and arguments of both the
assessee and the Department in the cases of M/s. Horizon Capital Ltd.
& M/s. MBL & Co. Ltd. (Supra), were identical to those in the instant
case of the appellant. The decision in the case of M/s. Horizon Capital
Ltd. & M/s. MBL & Co. Ltd. (supra) therefore, are clearly applicable in
the instant case which being the decision of a superior judicial authority is
binding for deciding identical issue under identical facts and
circumstances. Further, it has been pointed by the appellant that same
                                      3                 ITA No. 2271/Mum/2012
                                                     M/s. Visaria Securities P. Ltd.




view has been pronounced in order dated 02.07.2010 in appeal No.
CIT(A)-41/ACCC-37/IT-601/09-10 in the name of Naman Securities &
Finance Pvt. Ltd. in which it has been observed that it was clear from
ITR 6 that where tax payable works out under normal provisions of Act or
under MAT u/s. 115JB whichever is higher, the rebate u/s. 88E is to be
allowed to the appellant that there was no prohibition in claiming rebate
in respect of securities transaction tax paid against income tax payable
under MAT under provisions of section 115JB of the Income tax.
Respectfully following the decision in the cases of M/s. Horizon Capital
Ltd. & M/s. MBL & Co. Ltd. (supra), rendered by the Hon'ble Bangalore
and Delhi Tribunals respectively, I am of the opinion that comparison
between tax determined under normal provisions of the income tax act
and that determined under section 115JB shall be made for the purpose
of determining applicability of the provisions of section 115JB, on gross
basis before allowing rebate u/s 88E from the income tax determined
under normal provisions of income tax Act and rebate u/s 88E would also
be available to the assessee against the tax payable u/s. 115JB of the
Income tax Act. The appellant shall be required to make payment of higher
of the two amounts. Such proposition is inevitable from the format of the
Return of Income (ITR-6) as prescribed. The appeal on these grounds is
allowed.

5.    Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing the
learned counsel for the assessee strongly relied upon the judgement of the
Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Horizon Capital Ltd.
245 CTR (Kar) 601 wherein the same issue was decided in favour of the
assessee.

6.    The learned D.R. strongly supported the order passed by the AO. He
could not place before us any decision of any High Court/Supreme Court
wherein a contrary view was taken. Under these circumstances we are of the
view that the order passed by the learned CIT(A), on this issue, does not call
for any interference.

7.    In the result, as pronounced in the open court, the order passed by
the CIT(A) is affirmed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th September, 2013.

                Sd/-                                   Sd/-
        (D. Karunakara Rao)                       (D. Manmohan)
        Accountant Member                         Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 10th September, 2013
                                       4                  ITA No. 2271/Mum/2012
                                                       M/s. Visaria Securities P. Ltd.

Copy to:

   1.   The   Appellant
   2.   The   Respondent
   3.   The   CIT(A) ­ VIII, Mumbai
   4.   The   CIT­ IV, Mumbai City
   5.   The   DR, "F" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

                                                       By Order

//True Copy//
                                                    Assistant Registrar
                                            ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
n.p.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Sitemap

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions