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

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Axiom Share Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1198/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Income Tax Officer-1(1)- Vs. M/S. Axiom Share Broking Pvt. Ltd., 819/820, 8Th Floor, P. J. (1), Room No.534/579, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Towers, Stock Exchange, Mumbai 400 020 Samachar Marg, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aafca 0309 Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

…ssue whether the entire amount of bill raised has to be considered for the purpose of claim of bad debts or only part of income has to be considered, has been settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT, Central II vs. Shreyas S. Morakhiya [342 ITR 285 (Bom.)] and also by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bonanza Portfolio [320 ITR 178 (Del.)]. Alternatively, she argued that in case the bad debts are not allowed, in that case this should be allowed as business loss in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Harsad J. Choksi v. CIT (20…

Ise Securities & Services Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1595/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2016AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Mr. Santosh Mankoskar
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, म ुंबई न्यायपीठ ‘आई’, म ुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.1595/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/s ISE Securities & Services Vs. DCIT, Range-4(1), Ltd., International Infotech Park, Mumbai Tower 7, 5th Floor, Sector-30, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ PAN/GIR No. : AAACI 6011 L (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. ननधाारयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Ajay R. Singh याजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Mr. Santosh Manko…

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Angel Capital & Debt Market Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3186/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 143(3)Section 36(2)

…ded the issue in favour of the assessee. एंजेल कै"पटल अँड डै"ट माक"ट "ल"मटेड 3 M/s Angel Capital and Debt Market Ltd 5. It is an undisputed fact that, now in wake of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shreyas S Morarkhia, reported in [2012] 342 ITR 285. this issue now stands decided in favour of the assessee, wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that, the value of share transaction by the assessee as a Stock broker on behalf of its clients is as much a part of the debt as is the brokerage which is charged by the assessee on the transaction. If the brokerage was credited to the profit and loss ac…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6204/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…21-1-2015. The issue is also squarely covered by the decision of the special bench in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia. Further, the decision of Special Bench has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia, 342 ITR 285. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements in assessee’s own case, we uphold the action of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance of bad debts. 8. With regard to deleting disallowance of depreciation on VSAT, we found that the assessee company had claimed depreciation of Rs.1,04,41,922/- on VSAT(Very Small Aperture Terminal) @ 60% of WDV consi…

ACIT CC 22, Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5788/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…21-1-2015. The issue is also squarely covered by the decision of the special bench in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia. Further, the decision of Special Bench has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia, 342 ITR 285. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements in assessee’s own case, we uphold the action of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance of bad debts. 8. With regard to deleting disallowance of depreciation on VSAT, we found that the assessee company had claimed depreciation of Rs.1,04,41,922/- on VSAT(Very Small Aperture Terminal) @ 60% of WDV consi…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T. Central Circle 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4581/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…21-1-2015. The issue is also squarely covered by the decision of the special bench in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia. Further, the decision of Special Bench has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia, 342 ITR 285. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements in assessee’s own case, we uphold the action of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance of bad debts. 8. With regard to deleting disallowance of depreciation on VSAT, we found that the assessee company had claimed depreciation of Rs.1,04,41,922/- on VSAT(Very Small Aperture Terminal) @ 60% of WDV consi…

A.C.I.T. C.C.22, Mumbai vs. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7463/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…21-1-2015. The issue is also squarely covered by the decision of the special bench in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia. Further, the decision of Special Bench has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia, 342 ITR 285. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements in assessee’s own case, we uphold the action of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance of bad debts. 8. With regard to deleting disallowance of depreciation on VSAT, we found that the assessee company had claimed depreciation of Rs.1,04,41,922/- on VSAT(Very Small Aperture Terminal) @ 60% of WDV consi…

Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 22, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7328/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./Ita No.4581/Mum/2012

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Chandra Vijay
Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

…21-1-2015. The issue is also squarely covered by the decision of the special bench in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia. Further, the decision of Special Bench has been upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia, 342 ITR 285. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements in assessee’s own case, we uphold the action of CIT(A) for deleting disallowance of bad debts. 8. With regard to deleting disallowance of depreciation on VSAT, we found that the assessee company had claimed depreciation of Rs.1,04,41,922/- on VSAT(Very Small Aperture Terminal) @ 60% of WDV consi…