1987 (10) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on: " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the loss of Rs. 11,839 on the sale of U.P. State Development Bonds was allowable under sections 28 and 29 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? " The facts, briefly, are that the opposite party had purchased U.P. State Development Bonds for the amount aggregating to Rs. 3,23,190. The cont .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hat cannot be disturbed by us in advisory jurisdiction. On similar facts, in Patnaik Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 161 ITR 365, the Supreme Court held that the loss on sale of such bonds was a revenue loss. Following the said authority, we hold that the opposite party is entitled to claim deduction of Rs. 11,839 as a revenue loss and that was rightly allowed by the Tribunal. In the result, the ques .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X