Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT RATES :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
 
 
From the Courts »
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21
 CHAUDHARY SKIN TRADING COMPANY Vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-21
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 Deputy Director Of Income Tax Vs. Virage Logic International

A. A. Doshi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd. R-711, Rotunda Building, Bombay Samachar Marg, Mumbai-400 023 Vs. ITO-4(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020
March, 24th 2015
                    ""   
     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI

       ,         ,                                    
     BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM

                     ./I.T.A. No. 8442/Mum/2010
                    (   / Assessment Year: 2001-02)
A. A. Doshi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd.              ITO-4(1)(1),
R-711, Rotunda Building, Bombay            /        Aaykar Bhavan,
Samachar Marg,                             Vs.      Mumbai-400 020
Mumbai-400 023
     . /  . /PAN/GIR No. AAACA 4670 R
         ( /Appellant)                        :            (     / Respondent)

         / Appellant by                       :    Shri Bhupendra Shah

           /Respondent by                     :    Shri Asghar Zain

                          /                   :    23.02.2015
                    Date of Hearing
                      /
                                              :    18 .03.2015
           Date of Pronouncement

                                     / O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
      This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai (`CIT(A)' for short) dated 19.10.2010, not allowing
the Assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(`the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2001-02 vide order dated
26.08.2005.

2.    The appeal concerns the disallowance of the assessee's claim qua a trade debt,
receivable by the assessee, a share broker, from a customer by the name M/s. Shah &
Shah Investment, in the sum of Rs. 10,08,078/-, on being written off as irrecoverable.
                                             2
                                                   ITA No. 8442/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02)
                                                   A. A. Doshi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd vs. ITO

3.     At the very outset, it was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative
(AR), the assessee's counsel, that the law in the matter had since attained finality, i.e.,
with the decision by the apex court in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT [2010] 323 ITR 397
(SC), as also by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia
[2012] 342 ITR 285 (Bom), placing a copy of the latter decision on record. As such, the
debt having been actually written off by the assessee in its books of account, no dispute
qua the same survives, so that the matter must be considered as squarely covered by the
said case law. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) would, without in any manner
rebutting the said contentions by the assessee, rely on the orders by the authorities below.




4.     We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record.
       A reading of the impugned order reveals that the ld. CIT(A), on analyzing the
decisions in the case of Dy.CIT vs. Shreyas S. Morakhia [2010] 5 ITR 1 (Mum) (SB)
(Trib), since affirmed by the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide its decision cited
supra, and CIT vs. DB (India) Securities Ltd. [2009] 318 ITR 26 (Del) [226 CTR 466],
relied upon by the assessee before him, found their ratio as of the assessee being entitled
to its' claim of loss on account of bad-debt, upon write off in the books of account,
determined at the amount not realizable, i.e., at net of the value of the securities or other
assets of the debtor held by him. The argument is unexceptionable. The law in the matter
is well settled, so that it is only the assessment of the assessee as a businessman, i.e., in
relation to the debt being irrecoverable and, further, as signified by the write off of the
relevant debt in his books of account for the relevant year, which is decisive of the claim,
both as regards the amount irrecoverable and the period in which it is so becomes or is
deemed to be so. The Revenue, where it disputes the same, has to show that it is not so,
so that the write off is, to whatever extent, not genuine (refer: DIT(IT) vs. Oman
International Bank Saog [2009] 313 ITR 128 (Bom)). No doubt qua the genuineness of
the claim or the write off per se, however, stands expressed by the Revenue in the instant
case. The Revenue's right of verification of the assessee's claim, however, cannot be
denied and, in fact, to the extent not verifiable or otherwise not explained in terms of or
on the basis of the underlying facts, is, to that extent, not a valid claim. In the present
                                              3
                                                    ITA No. 8442/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02)
                                                    A. A. Doshi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd vs. ITO

case, the Revenue's objection is apparently valid in-as-much as it is only the amount not
recoverable, i.e., net of securities or other assets of the debtor available with the assessee
as a creditor, and which it can realize and, therefore, realizable, that is irrecoverable, and
which could be claimed by the assessee. Whether the assessee, in his wisdom, actually
realizes the same or not, is not relevant. What is relevant is that the assessee in the course
of his business has right to the securities which can be realized and the amount
appropriated against the outstanding debt of the debtor under reference. Where not
realized, the securities/assets would have to be valued, and their realizable value adopted
for the purpose.
       We may though clarify that we are here not considering or speaking of the claims
or rights that are disputed, and would, therefore, where so deemed fit and proper by the
assessee, enforced through or by recourse to a legal process, as a recovery suit. The two
aspects are different. Such rights of claims, if and to the extent realized, would stand to
be assessed and brought to tax u/s. 41(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has, however, fell in
error in confirming the full disallowance, rather than requiring the assessee to establish
the quantum which was under the circumstances realizable, so that the matter is
essentially one of valuation and not of disallowance per se.
The matter shall, accordingly, travel back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to enable the determination of the amount, if any, realizable, and thus the quantum of disallowance, if any, warranted under the circumstances. The ld. CIT(A) shall adjudicate per a speaking order after hearing both the parties before him. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on March 18th March,, 2015 Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Sanjay Arora) / Judicial Member / Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated :18 .03.2015 4 ITA No. 8442/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2001-02) A. A. Doshi Share & Stock Brokers Ltd vs. ITO /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent 3. () / The CIT(A) 4. / CIT - concerned 5. , , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. / Guard File / BY ORDER, / (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) , / ITAT, Mumbai
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Portfolio

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions