1. This Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) challenges the order dated 12th December, 2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal). The impugned order is in respect of Assessment year 2006-07.

2. The revenue has urged before us the following questions of law for our consideration :

(A) "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing depreciation on amount This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/01/2016 paid by the Assessee company to Ashmavir Financial Consultants amounting to Rs. 2.50 crores being amount paid by the Assessee company for acquiring the clientele of the business of Ashmavir Financial Consultants even though such payment made by the Assessee company could not be considered as purchase of goodwill or any commercial right from the said Ashmavir Financial Consultants

(B) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer u/s 40A(ia) of expenditure incurred by the Assessee company towards payment of data charges to Bloomberg even though the Assessee company had not deducted TDS on such payment made to avail professional services

(C) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the tribunal was justified in holding that the deeming provision of section 2 (22) (e) of the Income Tax Act cannot be applied to an Assessee company as the assessee company is not a shareholder of the company that advanced the loan to the assessee company even though there was a common shareholder holding substantial interest on both the companies "

3. Regarding Question (B) :

(a) During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disallowed the payment made to Bloomberg being data services charges of Rs. 4.74 lacs on account of non-deduction of TDS under section 40A (ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the payment made by the respondent-assessee to Bloomberg was in the nature of consultative services. Thus liable to deduction of tax at source. This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/01/2016

(b) On appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on examination of facts came to the conclusion that the payment which was made to Bloomberg was essentially a payment made to subscription for a financial e-magazine. Consequently there would be no occasion to invoke section 40A (ia) of the Act. Thus, the expenditure was allowed. On appeal by the revenue to the Tribunal the department s representative appearing for the revenue as recorded in the impugned order was not able to point out any facts which would suggest that payment of Rs. 4.74 lacs made to Bloomberg was liable to TDS. The Tribunal also recorded a finding of fact that the payment is nothing but a subscription for emagazine/journal. Accordingly, the revenues appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed.

(c) Mr. Malhotra learned counsel for the revenue submits that as a consequence of the payment made to Bloomberg the respondent-assessee is able to obtain a detailed analysis by experts and information on various industries. This would have a direct impact as the business of the respondent-assessee. Thus, it cannot be considered to be in the nature of subscription for e-magazines and therefore, payment made has to be considered as payment made for receipt of professional/consultative advices. Thus liable to deduction of tax at source under section 195.

(d) We find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/01/2016 (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have reached a concurrent finding of fact that payments made to M/s Bloomberg was made for subscription to e-magazines and therefore, there is no occasion to deduct as the tax under the Act. Thus under Section 40A (ia) of the Act could not have been invoked. The submission on behalf of the revenue that Bloombergs magazines/information is backed by solid research carried out by its employees and made available on website would not by itself result in M/s Bloomberg rendering any consultative services. It is not the case of the revenue that specific queries raised by the respondent-assessee were answered to by M/s Bloomberg as a part of the consideration of Rs. 4.34 lacs. The information is made available to all subscribers to emagazines/journal of M/s Bloomberg. Therefore, in no way the payments made to M/s Bloomberg can be considered to be in the nature of any consultative/professional services rendered by Bloomberg to the respondents. In any view of the matter, the findings reached by both authorities cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. It is a possible view and consequently Question (B) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Accordingly, not entertained.

4. Regarding Question (C) it is an agreed position between the parties that the issue arising herein stands covered against the revenue and in favour of the respondent-assessee by the decision of this Court in This Order is modified/corrected by Speaking to Minutes Order dated 06/01/2016 Commissioner of Income Tax v. Impact Containers P. Ltd (2014) 367 ITR 346 (Bom) [LQ/BomHC/2014/1682] . Accordingly question (C) as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law and hence not entertained.

5. Appeal admitted on question (A).