9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of law. "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in denying the allowance of bad debts of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- when all the conditions for allowance of the same have been complied with for the impugned assessment year on the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not considering the latest return of income along with the financial statements in which the bad debt has been written off and erred in not granting deduction for bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstance of the case. 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessment order passed under section 153 C without serving the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment year 2006-07 on 15.04.2008 declaring nil income. However, a revised return was filed on 31.03.2009 declaring total income as Rs. 1,41,37,910/-, claiming Rs. 2,00,00,000/- as bad debts receivable from Sri Byregowda. Thereafter, it is contended that the authorities conducted search as contemplated under Section 132 of the Act on 26.07.2007 on one Srinivasa Raju and others in order to discover receipt if any by Mr. Dayanand Pai, one of the partners of the firm in favour of Sri Byregowda. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim by an Order dated 29.12.2003 purported to be under Section 143(3) read with Section 153C of the Act. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner of Income Tax who dismissed the appeal in limine, in ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c. petition stating that the matter pertains to depreciation. The grounds urged in the Misc. Petition are as under: "2. The Ld. AR for the assessee has drawn our attention to para 3 of the MP and page 12 of the paper book. It was submitted that Tribunal had erred in disallowing the depreciation claimed by assessee in the revised return of income and therefore rectification of the error was required. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal after considering the revised return of income and the returns of income filed for the subsequent assessment years has disallowed the depreciation and hence the Tribunal was right in its decision. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the order passed by the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
