Emkay Global Financial Services Ltd. v. Dy. CIT (2022) 93 ITR 96 (Mum.)(Trib.)

S. 37(1) : Business expenditure-Capital or revenue-Bad debts-Security deposits to land lord-Written off as revenue expenditure-Allowable as revenue expenditure. [S. 36(1)(vii)]

Held that the security deposit could not be considered as an enduring benefit to the assessee as the rent was being paid. For various reasons the assessee could not recover the deposits. Applying the principles of going concern concept, compared with the debtors, when the recovery was doubtful the claim was written off as bad debts in the profit and loss account, it could be allowed as a revenue expenditure in the relevant year. If the assessee was able to recover the money from the landlord in the future, it had to be offered as an income of the assessee. Allowable as revenue expenditure. (AY.2014-15)