This is premium content. Please become a Premium member. If you are already a member, login here to access the full content.
Brokerage Is Turnover, Not Client Trades: ITAT Delhi Deletes 271B Penalty on Sub-Broker
Case Law Details
- Case Name
- Brijesh Kumar Goswami Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
- Appeal Number
- Only available for paid members
- Date of Judgement/Order
- Only available for paid members
- Related Assessment Year
- 2010-11
- Courts
- All ITAT, ITAT Delhi
Upgrade to Basic or Premium to download.
Already Upgraded? Log in.
Advertisement
Brijesh Kumar Goswami Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Brokerage Is Turnover, Not Client Trades: ITAT Delhi Deletes 271B Penalty on Sub-Broker
Delhi ITAT deleted the penalty of ₹1.50 lakh u/s 271B, holding that a share sub-broker’s turnover for the purpose of section 44AB is only the brokerage income and not the gross value of trades executed on behalf of clients.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee acted merely as a sub-broker/agent for various main brokers and earned brokerage of about ₹9.70 lakh, while the gross trading value of ₹4.09 crore represented client transactions. The ...
Author Info
