CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia

342 ITR 285High Court2012#2410 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 366,339 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)
Read the full judgment

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

The Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Goldmine Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 610/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.610/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T, M/S Goldmine Stocks Pvt. Ltd., Circle-3, Room No.109, 4, Niranjan Nirakar Society, Vs. ‘B’ Wing, 1St Floor, Shreyas Railways Crossing, Pratyakshyakar Bhawan, Paldi, Panjrapole, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad-380005. Ahmedabad Pan: Aaacg5445N

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr. D.R
Section 14ASection 28Section 28(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act has been duly complied with and accordingly the assessee is eligible for deduction as bad debts. Thus we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia reported in 342 ITR 285 wherein it was held as under: “The value of the shares transacted by the assessee 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 to the profit and loss account of the assessee, it was evident that a part of the debt…

Tata Motors Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed, for

ITA 1490/MUM/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 54E

…ccount of discounted bills are in the nature of trading loss which is 11 Tata Motors allowable as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shreyas M Morakia vs CIT 342 ITR 285 to argue that even principal amount outstanding is deductible, if the same is not recoverable. 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is in the business of financing and in the process, it has carried out bill discounting business. The amount outstanding in…

Truimph International Finance India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

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

ITA 242/MUM/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 36(2)

…n rendered by the Special bench of Tribunal in the case of Shri Shreyas Morarkhia (ITA No.3374/M/2004 dated 10-01-2010). The decision rendered by the Special bench has since been approved by Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in its decision reported in 342 ITR 285 in the very same case. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 6.7.2018. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 6/7/2018 Copy of the Or…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1187/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned addition by contending that the issue in hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285)(Bom.), order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue. However, the ld. DR relied upon the assessment order by advancing arguments, which are identical to the ground raised. 4.2. We have considered the rival subm…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1188/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned addition by contending that the issue in hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285)(Bom.), order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue. However, the ld. DR relied upon the assessment order by advancing arguments, which are identical to the ground raised. 4.2. We have considered the rival subm…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 469/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned addition by contending that the issue in hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285)(Bom.), order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue. However, the ld. DR relied upon the assessment order by advancing arguments, which are identical to the ground raised. 4.2. We have considered the rival subm…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

ITA 468/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)

…On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the assessee defended the impugned addition by contending that the issue in hand is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285)(Bom.), order of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue. However, the ld. DR relied upon the assessment order by advancing arguments, which are identical to the ground raised. 4.2. We have considered the rival subm…

Bfil Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5729/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar-DR
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ncurred by it was for carrying on its normal business,that in the earlier year the assessee had shown the income from lease rentals under the head business income, that the AO had accepted the claim of the assessee.He relied upon the cases of Shreyas Morarka (342 ITR 285) and Progressive Stock Management Company Private Ltd.(ITA/1487/Kolkata/2016).He further argued that the second limb of the section 36(2)(i) would apply to the transaction in question, that the AO and the FAA were applying first limb of the subsection. The Departmental Representative(DR)contended that the assessee did not make any provision for b…

A.C.I.T Cir - 46, Kolkata vs. The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2153/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1936 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2153 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. -Vs- The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 28

…same to the tune of Rs 7,53,998/- in its books of accounts and claimed the same as deduction. This loss would be regular business loss allowable u/s 28 of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Shreyas S Morakhia reported in 342 ITR 285 (Bom) had held as under:- 14. The value of the shares transacted by the assessee 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 6 The Bantra Co-operative Bank Ltd. A.Yr. 2008-09 on the transaction. The brokerage having been credited to the profit and loss account of the…

The Bantra Co - Operative Bank Ltd, Howrah vs. I.T.O WD - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1936/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1936 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2153 /Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward-46(4), Kolkata. -Vs- The Bantra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. [Pan: Aabct 2605 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. S. Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 28

…same to the tune of Rs 7,53,998/- in its books of accounts and claimed the same as deduction. This loss would be regular business loss allowable u/s 28 of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Shreyas S Morakhia reported in 342 ITR 285 (Bom) had held as under:- 14. The value of the shares transacted by the assessee 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 6 The Bantra Co-operative Bank Ltd. A.Yr. 2008-09 on the transaction. The brokerage having been credited to the profit and loss account of the…

The DCIT, Circle-3, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Kunvarji Commodities Brokers Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 3259/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri P.M. Mehta with G.M. Thakor
Section 36(2)

…ransactions entered into by it with its client. We find that an identical issue was considered by the Special Bench of the Tribunal Bombay in the case of Shreyas S. Morakhia and the Special Bench decision has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in 342 ITR 285 wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that value of the share transacted by a broker on behalf of its client is very much allowable as bad debts. We do not find any 4 . A.Y. 2011-12 error or infirmity in the findings of the ld. CIT(A), therefore, no inference is called for. 10. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Co…

DCIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3080/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234DSection 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2747/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd, Income Tax, Mookambika Complex, Corporate Circle 6(1), No.4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACI2727H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3080/Mds…

Shriram Insight Share Brokers Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee as well as that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2747/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234DSection 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2747/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/s. Shriram Insight Share Brokers Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Ltd, Income Tax, Mookambika Complex, Corporate Circle 6(1), No.4, Lady Desika Road, Chennai. Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AAACI2727H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.3080/Mds…

Data Infosys Limited, Alwar vs. DCIT, Alwar

In the result, revenue’s ground no

ITA 58/JPR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 May 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri R.A.Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 10ASection 35D

…s.DCIT(Hqrs.), Alwar Rs.66.91 lacs from the assessee, it is allowable as bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii), once the amount is written off in the books of accounts. For this reliance is placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia 342 ITR 285 where assessee, a share broker, engaged in the transactions of sale & purchase of shares for his clients claimed deduction by way of bad debts u/s 36(1)(vii) r.w.s. 36(2) of IT Act in respect of amount which could not be recovered from its clients. The same was disallowed by the AO. It was held that deduction on account of bad debt can be allowed…

S.K. Silks, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 14(3), Mumbai

ITA 3616/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3616/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./351/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. S.K. Silks Addl Cit, -14 (3) 9, Chatrabhuj House, 285 Princess Street Earnest House, 5Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point,Mumbai. Pan:Aaafs 1035 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr Assessee By: Dr. P. Daniel

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अ…

S.K. Silks, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 14(3), Mumbai

ITA 351/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3616/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./351/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. S.K. Silks Addl Cit, -14 (3) 9, Chatrabhuj House, 285 Princess Street Earnest House, 5Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Nariman Point,Mumbai. Pan:Aaafs 1035 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-Dr Assessee By: Dr. P. Daniel

For Appellant: Dr. P. DanielFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Mundhe-DR
Section 254(1)Section 36Section 80H

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “ ई” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“E”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"",लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं, राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं राम राम लाल लाल नेगी नेगी "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./3615/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील अ…

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5727/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & R.L. Negiिनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./5727/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dy. Cit-, Central Circle-3(3) M/S.Sharekhan Ltd. Room No.401, Aayakar Bhavan, Lodha I, Think Techno Campus 4Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. 10Th Floor, Beta Building, Off Jvlr, Kanjurmarg (E),Mumbai-400 002. Pan:Aaecs 5096 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Ms. Arju Goradia-Sr.Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Dharan Gandhi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/04/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2017 लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd.10.09.2015,Of The Cit(A)-51,Mumbai The Assessing Officer(Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking, Filed Its Return Of Income Of 30/09/2011 Declaring Income Of Rs.1,10,25,71,740/-.Later On A Revised Return Was Filed On 25.10.2012 Declaring Income Of Rs.109.20 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 28/03/2014 U/S.143(3) Of The Act Determining His Income At Rs.110.29 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Goradia-Sr.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…e is not accepted by the Department. Now it is the case of Ld. AR that Hon’ble Bombay High Court has upheld the said decision of Special Bench in the appeal filed by the Revenue and reference was made to the decision in the case of CIT vs. Shreyas S.Morarkia, 342 ITR 285(Bom). 6.1 Ld. AO disallowed a sum of Rs.1,18,82,970/-, Rs.90,035 and Rs.52,283/-,which were claimed as bad debts written off in the P&L account. Ld. CIT(A) allowed the same on the basis of Special Bench decision in the case of Shreyas S. Morarkhia (supra). Against the aforementioned decision of Special Bench, the Revenue took up the matter in fur…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir E (Erstwhile ACIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of the assessee is allowed in part, in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 633/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S.Motilal Oswal Securities Vs. Acit Cc 3, Mumbai – 400 Ltd., Motilal Oswal Tower 020 Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel Ist Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3654Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Acit- Cc-3(3), Mumbai - Vs. M/S.Motilal Oswal Securities 400020 Ltd., Motilal Oswal Tower Rahimtullah Sayani Road, Opposite Parel Ist Depot, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacd3654Q Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Vijay Mehta Revenue By Mr. Saurabh Rai

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32Section 73

…Shreyas S. Morarka (2012) 19 taxmann.com 64. 6. We have considered rival contentions and found that issue under consideration is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., in the case of CIT v Shreyas S. Morakhia (342 ITR 285) and CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio (320 ITR 178 (Del). SLP dismissed by Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio (328 ITR 9(st)). Respectfully following the order of Bombay High Court, we do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) for deleting the disallowance on account of the bad debts. 7. With regard to the issue of VSAT, the assesse…

Sharekhan Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 5470/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde-CIT-DR
Section 36

…he order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA)and made elaborate submissions before him. After considering the submission of the assessee and the assessment order, he referred to the case of Shreyas S Morakhiya(342 ITR 285) of the Honorable Bombay High Court and allowed the claim made by the assessee. 2.2. During the course of hearing before us, representatives of both the sides argued that while deciding the appeals for the two earlier assessment years i.e.2007- 08(ITA/9065/Mum/2010-&ITA/1027/Mum/2011-AY.2007-08,dtd.15.05.2015) and 2008-09 (ITA.s.6350 and 6999/ Mu…

Mahindra Engg. & Chemical Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-I City-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2947/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri H.P.MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi Ramchandran
Section 143(3)Section 35D

…deposits/advances was not offered to tax in an earlier or the current year and, therefore, condition prescribed under section 36(2)(i) is not fulfilled. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia, 342 ITR 285(Bom), wherein assessee was a stock broker and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of shares. Brokerage earned from the clients was offered for tax; and the principal amount due from the clients also remained outstanding. The claim of the assessee was to treat not only the unrecoverable brokerage, but also the unrecoverable amount of prin…