The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai v. M/S.ventura Securities Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2605 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 4, Mumbai..Appellant. Versus M/s.Ventura Securities Limited ..Respondent. Mr.A.R. Malhotra for the appellant.Mr.Aditya Bhatt for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &M.S. Sanklecha, JJ. DATE : 13[th] March 2013 P.C. : 1.In this appeal by the Revenue for assessment year 2001-02, following questions of law has 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 his client apart from the commission earned by him ?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 his client 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 over-looking 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 Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee as bad debt over-looking 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 2.The issues arising in the present appeal stands concluded in favour of the respondent – assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of this Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Shreyas S. Morakhia reported in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom). 3.In view of the above, we see no reason to entertain the questions (a) and (b). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.S. Sanklecha, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)