https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204538 The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, holding that the respondent-assessee was not entitled to a deduction for a written-off debt of Rs. 1,30,242 as it had not shown the debt as income, thus failing to meet the conditions for the deduction under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court distinguished the case from precedent where the debt was explicitly reflected as income. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the deduction to the respondent-assessee. en-us Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204538 The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal, holding that the respondent-assessee was not entitled to a deduction for a written-off debt of Rs. 1,30,242 as it had not shown the debt as income, thus failing to meet the conditions for the deduction under section 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court distinguished the case from precedent where the debt was explicitly reflected as income. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, denying the deduction to the respondent-assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204538