TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, which was to be made by the subbroker to the assessee, it cannot be said that there was no transaction between the assessee and the sub-broker and the assessee had to make payment on behalf of the sub-broker, which he could not recover to the extent of ₹ 41,37,881, that sum has to be treated as “debt”. We notice from the decision of the CIT (Appeals) that the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. D.B.(India) Securities [2009 (7) TMI 894 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein held that as the assessee had not sold the shares to anybody else in the market and in the absence of such a sale, the assessee could not claim the aforesaid amount as “bad debt”. - Decided against revenue - TAX APPEAL NO. 378 of 2016 - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, assessment order and appellant's submission. Appellant submitted that this issue is covered in its favour by the decision of ITAT special bench Mumbai in the case of Shreyas s Morakhia, 40 SOT 432 and also Delhi High Court decision in the case of DB Securities Ltd. 318 ITR 46. The decision of Delhi High Court is final on the issue since SLP filed by the Department is dismissed by the Supreme Court. I have gone through the decisions in which such debts are held as allowable. In the immediate preceding year, CIT(A) has allowed the appellant's claim of bad debts in identical facts by order dated 29.12.2010. Respectfully following the decisions in the identical facts of the appellant, the disallowance made by the AO is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee making following observations: Learned counsel for the Revenue, in this appeal filed against the aforesaid order, has canvassed two submissions: (1) The aforesaid amount could not be treated as debt at all under the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act and, therefore, the question of treating it as bad debt does not arise. (2) The assessee had not sold the shares to anybody else in the market and in the absence of such a sale, the assessee could not claim the aforesaid amount as bad debt . In so far as the first submission of learned counsel for the Revenue is concerned, we do not find any force therein. As pointed out in the aforesaid facts, the assessee had purchased the aforesaid shares on behalf of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
