The Commissioner Of Income Tax-4,Mumbai v. M/S. Vd Maniar Share And Stockbrokers Pvt.ltd

srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIONINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 857 OF 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-4,Mumbai ...Appellant Versus M/s. VD Maniar Share and StockBrokers Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondent Ms.P.S.Cardozo for appellant.Ms.Sanjukta Chowdhary i/b. P.K.P.Legal Solutions for respondent. CORAM: DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. March 14, 2012. P.C. 1.This appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 arises from a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 9 September 2010. Two questions of law have been raised by the Revenue in this Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as follows: (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 it on behalf of its client apart from the commission earned by it; (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 under Section 36(1)(vii)? 2.Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that the aforesaid questions are covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Central- II, Mumbai Vs. Shri Shreyas S. Morakhia.[1]In view of the statement 1. Income Tax Appeal No.89 of 2011 decided on 28 February 2012 made by the counsel for the Revenue, no substantial question of law would arise in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (DR.D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)