1 itxal-471-11 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL (LOD) NO.471 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai ..Appellant. V/s. M/s. Padmakashi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the appellant. Mr. Jitendra Jain with Jas Sanghvi i/b. PDS Legal for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 18TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Three questions of law are raised by the revenue in this appeal. 2. As regards questions (b) & (c) are concerned, it is seen from the order of the Tribunal that the matter has been remanded back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh decision in accordance with law. Since the issues are restored to the file of the assessing officer for fresh consideration, we are not inclined to entertain questions (b) & (c). However, it is made clear that all the contentions of both the parties are 2 itxal-471-11 kept open to be agitated before the assessing officer. 3. The appeal is admitted on question (a), which reads as under:- “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,78,745/- made in respect of leaseline and transaction charges without appreciating the facts that these were composite charges for professional and technical services rendered by the stock exchange to its members and the assessee has failed to deduct TDS thereon ? ” 4. Counsel for the parties states that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. M/s. Kotak Securities Ltd. [Income Tax Appeal No.3111 of 2009] decided on 21st October, 2011, the issue relating to leaseline charges is answered in favour of the assessee and the issue relating to the transaction charges is answered in favour of the revenue. Accordingly, the first question is answered accordingly. 5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.R. JOSHI, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)