9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in directing the ITO to allow the assessee's claim for deduction of an amount of Rs. 14,000 as bad debt, whereas this amount is neither a bad debt nor a business loss. (2) Without prejudice to ground No. 1 above, it is submitted that the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee's claim for deduction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resented a loan and the assessee was not doing money-lending business, the claim of the said amount as "bad debt" could not be accepted in view of the specific provisions of s. 36(2)(i)(a) of the IT Act. On this reasoning, the ITO disallowed the claim. 3. On appeal, the CIT (Appeals) accepted the contention on behalf of the assessee that the transaction was not an isolated transaction of loan b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the assessee against Shri Ibrahim Rokhandawala of M/s Regal Iron Supplying Co. for cheating. From these facts, the CIT (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the company had dealings with the aforesaid concern and advance was given for purely business considerations and, therefore, there was every justification for the assessee to write it off as bad debt when all chances of recovery of the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Co., only as a loan. He pointed out that even a cursory glance at the ledger account in the name of said Regal Iron supplying Co. In the books of the assessee for the accounting years relevant to the asst. yrs. 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75 would show that there were regular transactions between the assessee and the afore said suppliers of steel; that advances were given to the party by cheques a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formed part of the assessee's regular business transactions with the party concerned and it remained outstanding because of the failure of the party to honour the debt. We are also satisfied that there was justification for the assessee to write off the amount in the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1979-80, as held by the CIT (Appeals). We, therefore, confirm his decision and dismiss the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
