| COURT: |
|
| CORAM: |
|
| SECTION(S): |
|
| GENRE: |
|
| CATCH WORDS: |
|
| COUNSEL: |
|
| DATE: |
(Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: |
September 18, 2009 (Date of publication) |
| AY: |
|
| FILE: |
|
| CITATION: |
|
|
|
Share broker is eligible to claim “bad debts” u/s 36 (1) (vii) / 36 (2)
The assessee, a broker, purchased shares of the value of Rs.1,06,10,247 on behalf of its sub-broker. The sub-broker made payment of Rs.64 lakhs. As the remaining amount of Rs.41,37,881 was not paid, the assessee did not deliver those shares to the client though it offered the brokerage to tax. Since the balance payment was not made even in the next year, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 41,37,881 as a “bad debt” u/s 36 (1) (vii). The Tribunal allowed the claim. On appeal by the Revenue to the High Court HELD:
(i) The contention of the Revenue that the said amount was not a “debt” u/s 36 (2) and, therefore, could not be treated as a “bad debt” was not acceptable because there was a valid transaction between the assessee and the sub-broker. The brokerage was offered to tax and assessed. The assessee had to make payment on behalf of the sub-broker and as he could not recover to the extent of Rs.41,37,881/-, that sum had to be treated as a “debt”.
(ii) However, as the assessee had retained the shares, the “bad debt” would have to be reduced by the sale proceeds of the said shares. The balance was allowable.
Related Posts:
- PCIT vs. Alag Securities Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) In so far the decision of the Supreme Court in NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is concerned, the same is not attracted in the present case in as much as facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable. Unlike the present case, the assessee in NRA Iron and…
- PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions & Networks India Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) We are of the considered view that in cases where there is stay of recovery of demand of tax, the Tribunal should deal with the appeals pending before it on a higher priority. The Tribunal should consider forming a separate list of such cases which should be heard on priority…
- M3M India Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ITSC (P&H High Court) For purposes of making an application for settlement, a case i.e. An assessment would be pending till such time as the assessment order is served upon the assessee. The declaration of law by this Court is binding on all authorities within the State including the Commission. The petitioner was entitled…
- PCIT vs. Ami Industries (India) P Ltd (Bombay High Court) In NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd (supra), the Assessing Officer had made independent and detailed inquiry including survey of the investor companies. The field report revealed that the shareholders were either non-existent or lacked credit-worthiness. It is in these circumstances, Supreme Court held that the onus to establish identity…
- All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) The petitioner's grievance that the work of important Tribunal like Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should not be allowed to suffer on account of shortage of administrative staff is perfectly legitimate, however, we do not find any lethargy on the part of the Department in not filing up said posts. Under…
- PCIT vs. Colour Roof (India) Ltd (Bombay High Court) Sine-qua-non for application of Section 41(1) of the Act, is that there should have been allowance or deduction claimed by the Assessee in any Assessment Year as a loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the Assessee. Subsequently, if any remission or waiver is granted in respect of which such…
Recent Comments