Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Income-Tax Officer vs Kenaram Saha And Subhash Saha And ... on 7 March, 2008
In this regard, we find that the case law relied on by the ld. AR on the
decision of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Saha Agency, supra is well founded. In the
said decision it was held as under:
Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds)-1 ... vs M/S Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 5 February, 2016
6. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of
the case. We find that the above facts are undisputed and only issue before us for our
adjudication in this case is that how much percentage of disallowance of STT rebate is to
be given. In view of the above facts as discussed above, the assessee's self transactions
are to the tune of 41% and brokerage/clients' transactions pertained to 59%. The
proposition of law laid down by this Coordinate bench in the case of M/s. Millennium
Stock Broking (P) Ltd., supra, if we go by that then at the best revenue can disallow
rebate u/s. 88E of the Act qua brokerage income at 10%, both on indirect expenses as
well as interest. We order accordingly."
Nh Securities Ltd. vs Dcit on 27 July, 2006
3.4. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record
and the case law cited by the ld. AR. The facts stated hereinabove remained undisputed
are not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. We find that the Coordinate bench of
this Tribunal had dealt with similar issue in the case of Destiny Securities Ltd., supra
wherein it was held as under:
Section 5 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 40 in The Advocates Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1