Share broker entitled to deduction for bad debts under Income Tax Act, 1961 - Tribunal ruling

DCIT Versus Shreyas S. Morakhia

DCIT Versus Shreyas S. Morakhia - [2010] 5 ITR 01, [2010] 40 SOT 432 (MUM.) (SB) Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to deduction under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for bad debts by a share broker.
2. Applicability of SEBI guidelines and stock exchange rules in determining the allowability of bad debts.
3. Satisfaction of conditions stipulated in section 36(2)(i) for the deduction of bad debts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) Read with Section 36(2):
The primary issue was whether a share broker is entitled to a deduction for bad debts under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for amounts that could not be recovered from clients for transactions effected on their behalf. The Tribunal examined the facts and noted that the assessee, a share broker, had written off the amount as irrecoverable in its books of account and claimed it as a deduction. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. Veerabhadra Rao K. Koteshwar Rao & Co., which held that the condition in section 36(2)(i) is satisfied if part of the debt is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. The Tribunal concluded that the brokerage income, which forms part of the debt receivable by the share broker from clients, satisfies the condition stipulated in section 36(2)(i). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the deduction under section 36(1)(vii).

2. Applicability of SEBI Guidelines and Stock Exchange Rules:
The Tribunal considered the argument that SEBI guidelines and stock exchange rules, which safeguard the interest of brokers, should prevent the occurrence of bad debts. However, the Tribunal held that the issue under consideration presupposes a fact situation where the assessee has actually suffered a loss. The Tribunal emphasized that whether the loss occurred due to not following SEBI guidelines or even after following them is irrelevant to the allowability of the deduction. The Tribunal reiterated that the allowability of the loss should be considered in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, and not based on SEBI guidelines or stock exchange rules. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pranlal Kesurdas, which held that the computation of profits chargeable to tax must allow for the deduction of bad debts incurred in the course of business.

3. Satisfaction of Conditions Stipulated in Section 36(2)(i):
The Tribunal analyzed whether the condition stipulated in section 36(2)(i) was satisfied in the case of a share broker where only the brokerage income is credited to the P&L account, and not the value of shares purchased on behalf of clients. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in T. Veerabhadra Rao K. Koteshwar Rao & Co., which clarified that it is sufficient if part of the debt is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee. The Tribunal held that brokerage income is part of the debt receivable by the share broker from clients and, when credited to the P&L account, satisfies the condition in section 36(2)(i). The Tribunal also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs. DB (India) Securities Ltd. and CIT vs. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd., which supported the view that the amount receivable by a share broker from clients against purchase of shares constitutes a trading debt, and the brokerage income taken into account in computing the income satisfies the condition in section 36(2)(i).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the amount receivable by the assessee, a share broker, from clients against transactions of purchase of shares constitutes a trading debt. The brokerage/commission income arising from such transactions forms part of the debt. When the brokerage/commission is taken into account in computing the income of the assessee, the condition in section 36(2)(i) is satisfied. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to a deduction under section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts after writing off the debts from the books of account as irrecoverable. The Tribunal answered the question referred to the Special Bench in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee, and directed the matter to be disposed of by the regular Bench in accordance with the decision rendered. The Tribunal also allowed the Department to raise arguments related to quantification of bad debts and verification of factual aspects, if permissible, before the Division Bench.