CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia

342 ITR 285High Court2012#2413 most cited

What is CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia authority for?

For a share broker, the unrealised value of shares from clients or other trade balances written off is deductible as a bad debt under section 36(1)(vii) if the corresponding income was previously recognized. This principle applies to bad debts arising from revenue transactions, not capital loans.

48

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia · Shreyas S. Morakhia bad debt · section 36(1)(vii) · section 36(2) · deduction of bad debt · share broker bad debt · unrealised value of shares clients · revenue transactions bad debt · trade balances written off · Bombay High Court 342 ITR 285

Also reported as

206 Taxmann 32

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)Section 80HHCSection 115JBSection 14ASection 2(47)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(33)section 36(2)section 80hsection 36(1)(vii)section 80hhcsection 80hhblock of assetscommercial expediencysection 36(1)section 36section 32section 28

Judgments citing CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia

DSP ADIKO HOLDING PVT LTD,MUMBA vs. DY. CIT - CIRCLE 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 177/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 41(1)

…on revenue-have not been satisfactorily demonstrated by the appellant. The appellant has also not shown that the loan was directly related to its core business operations as an NBFC 6.7 The reliance placed by the appellant on CIT vs. Shreyas S Morakhia (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom) and PCIT vs. Hybrid Financial Services Ltd. (2020) 426 ITR 358 (Bom) is distinguishable, as these cases involved bad debts arising from revenue transactions, such as brokerage or trading operations, which directly impacted the Profit and Loss Account. In contrast, the loss in the present case pertains to the principal amount of the loan, wh…

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Y 2000- 01. 14.11. The aforesaid issue of inter-corporate deposit written off is covered by the following decisions in favour of the appellant (a) PCIT vs. Mahindra Engineering and Chemical Products Ltd. (439 ITR 399) (Bombay) (b) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285) (Bombay) (c) CIT v. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (235 Taxman 451) (Bom.)” 15.4 With these observations, the claim of the assessee was held to be allowable by the coordinate bench in the immediately preceding year. Page 37 ITA Nos. 3456 & 4099/Mum/2004 Α.Υ. 2000-01 M/s United Phosphorous Ltd.) 16.5 Thus, respectfully following the decision of…

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

ITA 644/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate and Ms. Somya Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 3

…essee qua the total amount (i.e; interest and principal ) of debt written off- - CIT v. T. Veerabhadra Rao: 155 ITR 152 (SC) - CIT v. D B (India) Securities Ltd: 318 ITR 26 (Del) - CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd: 320 ITR 178 (Del) - CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia: 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) - CIT v. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd.: 235 Taxman 451 (Bom.) - Angel Capital and Debt Market Ltd. v. ACIT: 118 TTJ 351 (Mum ITAT) - Angel Commodities Broking (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 164 TTJ 275 (Mum ITAT) - FedEx Express Transportation & Supply Chain Services India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT: 169 TTJ 732 (Mum. Trib.) - Bhavik Rajesh Khandra Share an…

NAYARA ENERGY LIMITED (ON BEHALF OF MERGED ENTITY VADINAR OIL TERMINAL LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSTT CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 778/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143Section 28Section 36Section 37

…further referred to the decision of honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT versus Shreyas S Page 27 of 66 ITA No 778/MUM/2022 Nayara Energy Limited [ On behalfof VadinarOil Terminal Limited] V ACIT Central Circle -2 (1), Mumbai AY 2017-18 Morakhia (2012) 342 ITR 285 wherein in case of a share broker unrealised value of shares from the clients were held to be deductible under section 36 (1) (vii) if brokerage is taken to the profit and loss account. He further referred to the question before the honourable High Court in paragraph number [1] and thereafter reference of special bench in paragraph number [3] and…

BAJAJ HOLDNGS & INVESTMENT LTD ( ERSTWHILE BAJAJ AUTO LTD),MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3043/MUM/2010[2002-013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-013

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI vs. BAJAJ AUTO LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2899/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhbajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. Of Income-Tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Dcit-3(4) Vs. M/S Bajaj Holding & Room No. 481-2, 4Th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Erstwhile Bajaj Auto Ltd) Mumbai – 400020 226, Bajaj Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacb3370K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Percy Pardiwala & Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor

For Appellant: Percy Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

…P a g e | 1 ITA No.3043 & 2899/Mum/2010 Bajaj Holdings & Investments Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range 3(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bajaj Holdings & Vs. Additional Commissioner Investment Ltd. of Income-tax, Range 3(1) Erstwile Bajaj Auto Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, Bajaj Bhavan, 226, M.K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AAACB3370K Appellant .. Respondent DCIT-3(4) Vs. M/s Bajaj Holding and Room No. 481-2, 4th Floor, Investment Limited Aaykar Bhavan, (Ers…

PRABHUDAS LILALDHAR P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 4(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4202/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)

…Rs.41.89 lakhs. 11. We notice that an identical disallowance made in AY 2010-11 has since been deleted by the ITAT. Further claim of the assessee is allowable as per the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shreyas morakhia (342 ITR 285). With regard to the bad debts claim of money lending companies and share broking concerns, it is required to be shown that the outstanding amount is written off as bad. There is no dispute that the assessee has written off the outstanding amount as bad debt. Hence we are of the view that no disallowance is called. Accordingly, we set aside the o…

M/S. PASUPATI SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6197/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2010-11 Pasupati Spinning & Weaving Mills Vs. Dcit, Ltd., Circle-14(1), 1501, Nirmal Tower, New Delhi. 26, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacp0164H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vipin Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 32.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.08.2014 Of The Cit(A)-Xvii, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1) That The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,10,28,688/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Amounts Written Off Pertaining To The Inter-Corporate Deposits/Advances To Certain Entities Many Years Prior To The Year Under Consideration. 2) That The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That The Facts Of The Appellant’S Case Were Identical To The Facts Of Poysha Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. & Interest Earned In The Earlier Years Has Been Taxed As Business Income & Following The Ratio Of That Judgement, The Loss On Account Of Writing Off These Debts Should Have Been Allowed As Business Deduction. 3) That The Disallowance Of Rs.2,10,28,688/- Confirmed By The Cit(A) Is Bad In Law. 4) That The Aforesaid Grounds Are Without Prejudice To One Another.”

For Appellant: Shri Vipin Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(vii)

…36(2)(i) of the Act as well as decision of this Court in Shreya Morakhia (supra), no substantial question of law arises for our consideration.” 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied and referred to its own judgement in the case of CIT vs. Shreyas Morakhia, 342 ITR 285 (SC) wherein their Lordships held that the assessee being entitled to deduction in view of First Part of Section 36(2)(i) of the Act. On being asked by the Bench the ld. Sr. DR could not show us any different facts and circumstances, from said judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Ltd. (supra).…

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 40

…eby offering it for taxation. It clarified that sale/purchase price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client is very much allowable as bad debts. The Revenue fails to rebut this legal position. We reject this third substantive ground accordingly." Following the above decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in Appellant's own case, disallowanc…

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), , AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD.(ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1939/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Wassem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2021/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Edelweiss Broking Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ (On Behalf Of Amalgamating Cricle-1(3), Vs. 1St Floor, B-109, Company, Edelweiss Financial Advisors Ltd.) Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Nr. 801-804, 8Th Floor, Abhishree Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Avenue, Opp. Hanumanji Ahmedabad-380015 Temple, Nehrunagar, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad- 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce9421H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR
Section 40

…eby offering it for taxation. It clarified that sale/purchase price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client is very much allowable as bad debts. The Revenue fails to rebut this legal position. We reject this third substantive ground accordingly." Following the above decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in Appellant's own case, disallowanc…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 446/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…eby offering it for taxation. It clarified that sale/purchase price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client is very much allowable as bad debts. The Revenue fails to rebut this legal position. We reject this third substantive ground accordingly." Following the above decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in Appellant's own case, disallowance…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD., ( FORMERLY KNOWN ANAGRAM STOCK BROKING LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 445/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…eby offering it for taxation. It clarified that sale/purchase price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client is very much allowable as bad debts. The Revenue fails to rebut this legal position. We reject this third substantive ground accordingly." Following the above decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in Appellant's own case, disallowance…

M/S. EDELWEISS BROKING LTD. ( AMALGAMATING COMPANY EDELWEISS FINANCIAL ADVISORS LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 318/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 36Section 36(2)Section 37Section 48Section 73

…eby offering it for taxation. It clarified that sale/purchase price of shares had been credited in the respective accounts. The CIT(A) follows special bench decision of the tribunal (2010) 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Bom.) DCIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia as upheld in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom.) CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia that value of the share transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of the concerned client is very much allowable as bad debts. The Revenue fails to rebut this legal position. We reject this third substantive ground accordingly." Following the above decision of Ahmedabad ITAT in Appellant's own case, disallowance…

DCIT 13(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ZICOM ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEM LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4218/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Justice P P Bhatt & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am Dcit-13(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Zicom Electronic Room No.229, Security System Limited 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 502, Silver Metropolis M.K.Road, Mumbai – 20 Western Express Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan/Gir No.Aaacz1444J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 138Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)

…rt had allowed the claim of write off of ICD as the business loss. While rendering this decision, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court also placed reliance on yet another decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shreyas S Morakhia reported in 342 ITR 285(Bom). The relevant operative portion of the decision of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mill Ltd is reproduced hereunder:- “10. So far as Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act is concerned, it is a settled position in law that after 1st April, 1989, it is not necessary that the debt itself must be proved to be irrecove…

ACIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHCIL SERVICES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…part of a debt is reflected as income, the condition of section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act stands fulfilled. In this regard, the Assessee places reliance on the following judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein it is held as under: Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285) (Bom.) "The value of the shares transacted by the assesee as a stock broker on behalf of its client is as much a part of the debt as is the brokerage which is charged by the assessee on the transaction. The brokerage having been credited so the profit and loss account of the assessee, it is evident that a part of the debit is taken into account…

SHCIL SERVICE LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…part of a debt is reflected as income, the condition of section 36(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act stands fulfilled. In this regard, the Assessee places reliance on the following judgment of the Bombay High Court wherein it is held as under: Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285) (Bom.) "The value of the shares transacted by the assesee as a stock broker on behalf of its client is as much a part of the debt as is the brokerage which is charged by the assessee on the transaction. The brokerage having been credited so the profit and loss account of the assessee, it is evident that a part of the debit is taken into account…

SHRIRAMINSIGHT SHARE BROKERS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2975/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [Pan: Aaaci2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Gautham Venketanarayanan, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai Dated 31.07.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Are That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Part Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D, Disallowance Of Depreciation In Respect Of Royalty, Disallowance Of Bad Debt & Part

For Appellant: Shri S. Gautham VenketanarayananFor Respondent: Shri J. Pavitran Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 14A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस जयरामन, लेखा सद" के सम" Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member & Shri S. Jayaraman, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2975/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner of Mookambika Complex, No. 4, Lady Vs. Income Tax, Desika Road, Mylapore, Corporate Circle – 6(1), Chennai 600 004. Chennai. [PAN: AAACI2727H] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Gautham Venketana…

MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7074/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Vice- & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: Shri M.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen &
Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145ASection 2(14)Section 35Section 35DSection 36Section 4Section 43BSection 45

…impugned sum is actually written-off in the books of account. In support of the claim that the impugned sum is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, reliance has been placed on the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Shreyas S Morakhia, 342 ITR 285(Bom) 2. Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd. (ITA No. 2947/Mum/2010 dated 30/10/2016.(mum Tribunal) 3. M/s. Kyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.129/Mum/2014 dated 04/03/2016 (Mum Tribunal) 4. Pudumjee Pulp & Paper Mills Limited (ITA No.1590 of 2013 dated 05/08/2018 (Bom) On the other hand, the Ld. DR has defended the action of the lower…

SHRI DINESH CHHAGANLAL THAKKAR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 54/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri A.L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR

…rious clients whose transactions as above were carried out by the appellant with Angel Group and which is taxed by the AO. The appellant has relied upon following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. Bonanza Polrtfolio Ltd. 320ITR 178 (Delhi) 2. CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia 342 ITR 285 (BOM) 3. Innovative Brokerage P Ltd. vs. ITOITA No.6007/Mum/2007 4.5. The facts of the case and the submissions are considered. The AO has disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the mandatory condition for claiming the bad debt had not been fulfilled by the assessee. A perusal of the facts of the case shows that clients of Angel…

CWT INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-

ITA 1588/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Cwt India Private Limited, The Assistant Commissioner Of Unit No. 2, Raheja Centre, Income Tax-9(2)(2), Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Free Press Journal Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaaci7084H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Butani/For Respondent: Saurabh Deshpande /
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

…ssessee is not required to prove that debt has become irrecoverable and merely writing off the same in the books of account is sufficient. The Ld. counsel further relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Shreyas Morakhia 342 ITR 285 (Bom) submitted that the AO has wrongly rejected the claim of the assessee. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR relying on the assessment order supported the action of the AO and submitted that since the assessee has failed to satisfy the condition mentioned in section 36(2) of the Act, the AO has rightly rejected the contention of the assessee. 9.…

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285) — Cited in 48 Judgments | BharatTax