9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1042X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B of expenditure amounting to ₹ 3,30,063/- on the travelling of assessee's employees to Kenya and holding that the said expenditure was only a part of cost of providing services in which the assessee deals? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of ₹ 1,25,000/- could not be allowed as bad debt and deducted for determining the assessee's income from business? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that sum of ₹ 40,24,531/- was correctly disallowed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inery. The machinery in issue, it is submitted, was not supplied and hence the amount was written of as bad debt in the year 1981-1982 relating to the Assessment Year 1982-1983. Mr. Sahni, on the other hand, submitted that since the amount was never shown as a trading receipt as held by the Tribunal, it could not have been treated as bad debt. Mr. Monga in rejoinder stressed that the amount was used as circulating capital and hence he should be allowed to write off the said amount. It is his submission that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct since, as a matter of fact the amount had admittedly not been shown a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ackground of the assessee having challenged the Cement Control order by way of a writ petition. The High Court at the interim stage directed that the assessee could retain the amount received subject to the amount being returned with interest incase the assessee were to lose the case. The amount in issue is really the crystallization of interest (which the assessee has calculated at the rate of 15% p.a.) on the amount to be returned if adverse orders were to be passed against it; mandating return of sums with interest. The figure thus, in issue, towards interest, is a sum of ₹ 15,59,670/-. The assessee in the assessment year in issue, has treated the said amount as liability and sought a deduction. The Tribunal in the impugned ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
