9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 707X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as with M/s. RPH Ltd. and most of the activities by the assessee-company were for the said shareholder. The assessee had taken plant and machinery on lease from the said shareholder company. A sum of Rs. 6,27,735 was lying under the head “Sundry debtors” which the company was not able to realise as this money was due and payable by M/s. N. B. Enterprises. The assessee had sent several letters dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts of the letters, the amount was written off. The assessing authority did not find any material on record to show that the amount had not been taken into account in computing the income of any previous years, hence the amount was deductible as bad debts. - 208 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 16-7-2009 - AGRAWAL R. K., GUPTA S. K. JJ. R.K. Upadhyay for the appellant. S.K. Garg for the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal was legally justified in confirming the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that the conditions of the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were met in the assessee's case ?" 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows : 3. The respondent-assessee, which is a private limited company, filed its return of loss on Decem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad debt as provided under section 36(2)(i) have not been clearly brought out. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has allowed the claim on the ground that the Assessing Officer has not pointed out that this debt has not been taken into account in computing the income in any earlier or previous year, which order has been upheld by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard Sri R. K. Upadhyay l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim as also the acknowledgments of the letters, the said amount was written off. The Assessing Officer did not make any comment on this issue and instead proceeded on the ground by simply saying that merely because the amount has become bad the assessee cannot claim to reduce the income and placed reliance on section 36(2)(i) of the Act. In our opinion, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
