https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67594 The department's appeal was dismissed as the reassessment under Section 36 of the IT Act failed to provide evidence that the debts were not bad. The Tribunal upheld the deduction of Rs. 1,05,100 as bad debts, as previously allowed by the AAC. The reopening of the assessment under Section 17(1)(b) was deemed unjustified due to lack of material evidence. The majority view concluded that the original computation was under Section 7(1), not Section 7(2), and referred the matter back for a decision consistent with this view. en-us Tue, 05 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:04:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67594 The department's appeal was dismissed as the reassessment under Section 36 of the IT Act failed to provide evidence that the debts were not bad. The Tribunal upheld the deduction of Rs. 1,05,100 as bad debts, as previously allowed by the AAC. The reopening of the assessment under Section 17(1)(b) was deemed unjustified due to lack of material evidence. The majority view concluded that the original computation was under Section 7(1), not Section 7(2), and referred the matter back for a decision consistent with this view. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 05 Apr 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67594