Itxa/2231/2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax -Central Iv v. Angel Commodities Broking Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2231 OF 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -IV..Appellant.V/s.M/s. Angel Commodities Broking Pvt. Ltd...Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Padma Divakar, for the Appellant.Mr. Sameer G. Dalal, for the Respondent. P.C:- CORAM: J.P.DEVADHAR & M.S.SANKLECHA,JJ.DATE : 27[th] FEBRUARY, 2013. In this Appeal for the Assessment Year 2006-07, following questions have been raised for our consideration:- (1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition, by holding that the leaseline charges cannot be considered as rendering of technical services and hence provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) were not attracted? (2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction by way of bad debts under section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were allowable to the assessee who is a share broker in respect of the amount which could not be recovered from its clients with regard to transactions effected by the assessee on behalf of his client? 2Counsel for the parties state that so far as Question (1) is concerned, same is covered in favour of the Respondent-Assessee and against Revenue by the decision of this Court on 28[th] July, 2011 in Income Tax Appeal (L) No.475 of 2011 in the matter of Income Tax Commissioner Mumbai City-4 v/s. Angel Capital & Debit Market Ltd.,. In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain Question (1). 3So far as Question (2) is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that the issue arising herein stands covered by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. Shreyas S. Morakhia reported in 342 ITR page 285. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has remanded this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The fresh order by the Assessing Officer will be passed keeping in view the decision of this Court in the matter of Shreyas S. Morakhia (supra). In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain Question (2). 4Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)