DEPUTY CIT v. SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA

5 ITR (Trib) 1Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#10650 most cited

What is DEPUTY CIT v. SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA authority for?

For the purpose of claiming a deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt in its accounts; it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable. The value of shares transacted by a broker-assessee on behalf of a client is allowable as a bad debt.

10

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2021.

Also referred to as

Deputy CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia · 5 ITR (Trib) 1 · section 36(1)(vii) · bad debts · irrecoverable debt · written off · broker-assessee · brokerage income · shares transacted

Judgments citing DEPUTY CIT v. SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA

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

…d already credited its brokerage income in profit and loss account thereby 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 th…

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

…d already credited its brokerage income in profit and loss account thereby 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 th…

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

…d already credited its brokerage income in profit and loss account thereby 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…

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

…d already credited its brokerage income in profit and loss account thereby 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…

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

…d already credited its brokerage income in profit and loss account thereby 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…

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)

…ORAKHIA [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) and also considered the decisions in CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt,…

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)

…ORAKHIA [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) and also considered the decisions in CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt,…

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)

…ORAKHIA [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) and also considered the decisions in CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt,…

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)

…ORAKHIA [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) and also considered the decisions in CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 320 ITR 178 (Delhi) (para 13), CIT v. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd. [2010] 328 ITR (St.) 9 (SC) (para 13), CIT (Deputy) v. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR (Trib) 1 (Mumbai) [SB] (para 8)CIT v. Veerabhadra Rao (T.), K. Koteswara Rao and Co. [1985] 155 ITR 152 (SC) (para 11) and T. R. F. Ltd. v. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397 (SC) (para 7). Thus, considering the provision of section 36(1)(vii), prior to April, 1, 1989 and post amendment held that it is not necessary for the assessee to establish that the debt,…

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)

…एंजेल कै"पटल अँड डै"ट माक"ट "ल"मटेड 1 M/s Angel Capital and Debt Market Ltd आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI "ी राज", लेखा सद"य एवं "ी अिमत शु"ला, "याियक सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. : 3186/Mum/2013 (Assessment year: 2008-09) एंजेल कै"पटल अँड डै"ट माक"ट "ल"मटेड Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs 4(1), M/s Angel Capital and Debt 6th Floor, Room No. 640, Market Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, G-1, Akruti Trade Centre, Road No.7, Mumbai -400 020 MIDC, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400 093 "थयी ल…

DEPUTY CIT v. SHREYAS S. MORAKHIA (5 ITR (Trib) 1) — Cited in 10 Judgments | BharatTax