2016 (6) TMI 338

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in Appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal raising following question for our consideration. "Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition Rs. 50,05,202/- made under Section 40(a)(ix) made by the AO without appreciating the fact that the assessee is in default under Section 201 of the I.T.Act and Section 40(a)(ia) rightly invoked by the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he order of AO making following observations:   "3.3. I have considered the facts of the 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 D .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he view of the CIT(Appeals) when it refers to the case of the Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. D.B.(India) Securities reported in 318 ITR 26 and places reliance on it. In the said decision, the Division Bench of the High Court considered a situation where the assessee was a member of the Delhi Stock Exchange and was engaged in the business of share and stock broking. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ke payment on behalf of the sub-broker, which he could not recover to the extent of Rs. 41,37,881, that sum has to be treated as "debt". 5. We notice from the decision of the CIT (Appeals) that the judgment of the Delhi High Court was carried in Appeal. SLP was however, dismissed. In view of the said facts, in our opinion, no question of law arises. The Tax Appeal is dismissed.
Case laws, De .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X