Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Dindayal Biyani Stock Brokers Ltd, ... vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal28 May 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a company computes its tax liability under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, the rebate available under section 88E may be claimed against that liability, the question being settled by the consistent view of the Tribunal's Mumbai Benches and by the decisions of the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts, none of which the Revenue could displace with contrary authority.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL"D" Bench, MumbaiBefore Shri D. Manmohan, Vice Presidentand Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant MemberITA No. 5844/Mum/2013(Assessment Year: 2007-08)

D C I T - 4(1) M/s. Dindayal Biyani Stock Room No. 640, 6th Floor Brokers Ltd. Vs. Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 417, Stock Exchange Tower Mumbai 400020 Dalal Street, Fort, Mumbai 400023 PAN - AAACD5066E Appellant Respondent

Appellant by: Shri Love Kumar Respondent by: Shri J.P. Bairagra

Date of Hearing: 28.05.2015 Date of Pronouncement: 28.05.2015

ORDER

Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by CIT(A)-8, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2007-08.

2. Following grounds were urged before us:

"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the fact and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee relying on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Horizon Capital Ltd. which is not the jurisdictional one.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the fact and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing rebate u/s 88E which specifically deals with minimum alternative tax payable only in cases where tax otherwise payable is below 10% due to operation of all other provisions of Act, and such all other provisions includes 88E of the I.T. Act.

3. 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 and consequently merits to be set aside that of the Assessing Officer be restored."

2 ITA No. 5844/Mum/2013 M/s. Dindayal Biyani Stock Brokers Ltd.

3. Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief. Assessee-company is a member of the Stock Exchange and engaged in the business of share and stock broking and trading. Assessee-company was dealing in shares and was allowed rebate under section 88E of the Act. After allowance of rebate under section 88E, the net tax payable was determined at `9,17,971/- under the normal provisions of the Act whereas the tax liability of the assessee under section 115JB works out to `18,05,193/-.

4. The AO, during the course of reassessment proceedings, was of the view that the rebate under section 88E is not deductible from the tax liability computed under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act and accordingly completed the assessment.

5. On an appeal filed by the assessee the learned CIT(A) observed that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s. Horizon Capital Ltd. 245 CTR 601 and accordingly allowed the plea of the assessee. AO was directed to allow deduction to the assessee under section 88E of the Act while computing tax liability under section 115JB of the Act.

6. Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue stands covered by various decisions of the Tribunal as well as the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Delhi High Court (see paper book from pages 13 to 35) and in the absence of any contrary decision on the above, the view taken by the learned CIT(A) deserves to be upheld.

7. The learned D.R. could not place any contrary decision on this point.

8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the record. The ITAT Mumbai Benches have consistently taken a view that rebate under section 88E of the Act can be claimed by the assessee while computing tax liability under section 115JB of the Act (DCIT vs. M/s. Archadia Share and Stock Brokers P. Ltd., ITA No. 6500/Mum/2013 dated 26.03.2015 & ACIT vs. M/s. Visaria Securities P. Ltd., ITA No. 2271/Mum/2013 dated 10.09.2013).

3 ITA No. 5844/Mum/2013 M/s. Dindayal Biyani Stock Brokers Ltd.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case we uphold the order passed by the CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th May, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.C. Sharma) (D. Manmohan) Accountant Member Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 28th May, 2015

Copy to:

1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) - 8, Mumbai 4. The CIT- 4, Mumbai City 5. The DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

By Order

//True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai n.p.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free