TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (4) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dated order. ITA No. 3558/Mum/2005 (By assessee) 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in this appeal: "1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.69,56,529/- on account of debts written off as irrecoverable" 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance on account of rent paid by the appellant to Dresdner Bank AG, to the extent of rs.22,85, 162, on the ground that the same pertains to the period when the premises were not occupied by the appellant; 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the assessment and making an addition of Rs. 11, 14,392 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debt. The brokerage/commission income arising from such transactions very much forms part of the said debt and when the amount of such brokerage/ commission has been taken into account in computation of income of the assessee of the relevant previous year or any earlier year, it satisfied the conditions stipulates in s 36(2)(i) and, the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) by way of bad debts after having written off the said debts from his books of accounts as irrecoverable. We therefore, answer the question referred to this Special Bench in the affirmative that is in favour of the assessee" 2.4 Moreover, in view of the decision of the Hoh. Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. LTD. vs. C.I.T. reported in (2010) 323 ITR 39....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2000 for the office premises situated at 16 and 17th, Hoechst House, Nariman Point, Mumbai. It was further held that the AO has not considered the proportionate society charges and brokerage charges for hiring the premises prior to September 2000. Accordingly the notice u/s 251 (1 (2) was given to the assessee for enhancement of the assessment on account of the society charges of Rs.4,56,804/-, and brokerage charges of Rs.6,57,588 and disallowed the same. . 3.2 Both the assessee as well as the revenue have challenged the order of the CIT (A). The assessee is aggrieved to the extent of disallowance confirmed for the period prior to September 2000 on account of service charges paid as well as the enhancement made on account of the society ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ized the services for the purposes of the business, the expenditure incurred during that period cannot be allowed as business expenditure. He has pointed out that the CIT (A) has reproduced the breakup of the expenditure month-wise at page 7 of the impugned order. Therefore, as per the breakup of the expenditure up to the month of September 2000 in which the assessee has occupied the premises cannot be claimed as expenditure for the purpose of business because the premises was not used by the assessee. In the absence of any written agreement, there is no connection of liability of the assessee towards the expenditure prior to the occupation of the premises. Accordingly, the disallowance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ared by group concern of the assessee as evident from the agreement of leave and license. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of appeal no.2 and 3 of assessee's appeal. 3.6 Grounds of appeal no.2 and 3 are allowed. ITA No. 2685/Mum/2005 (By revenue) 4. Only ground raised by the revenue in this appeal reads as under: "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in giving a relief of Rs.52,55,034/- to the aseseee on account of shared service cost" 5. Since we have discussed this issue in assessee's appeal and allowed the claim of the assessee, the grievance raised by the revenue has no merits and hence dismissed. 6. The appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 6950/Mum/2005 (By revenue) 7....