The Commissioner Of Income-4 v. Mr. Madhukar C. Seth

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.889 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income-4. v. Mr. Madhukar C. Seth. ..Appellant. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar with P. S. Cardozo for the Appellant.Mr. V.S.Hadade for the Respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2013 PC: In this appeal by the revenue for assessment year 2002-03 following questions of law have been proposed for our consideration. a)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assessee who is a share broker is entitled to deduction by way of bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the amount which could not be recovered from its clients in respect of transactions effected by him on behalf of its clients apart from the commission earned by him? b)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee as bad debt overlooking the provision of section 36(2) which provides that unless such debt or part thereof have been included in the computation of income of previous year or earlier years it cannot be allowed as bad debt u/s. 36(1) (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ASN 2)Counsel for the parties state that the issues arising in the aforesaid two questions stands covered by the decision of this court in the matter of CIT v. Shreyas S. Morakhia reported in 342 ITR Page 285 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 3)In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question of law. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)