https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211107 The Tribunal reversed the CIT (A)'s decision and upheld the disallowance of the bad debt claim under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the conditions for allowing bad debts were not met, as the amount claimed had not been considered in computing business income in any earlier year. It criticized the inconsistent stance of the assessee on the nature of shares and treatment of losses, ultimately siding with the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs.95 lakhs. en-us Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211107 The Tribunal reversed the CIT (A)'s decision and upheld the disallowance of the bad debt claim under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that the conditions for allowing bad debts were not met, as the amount claimed had not been considered in computing business income in any earlier year. It criticized the inconsistent stance of the assessee on the nature of shares and treatment of losses, ultimately siding with the Assessing Officer's disallowance of Rs.95 lakhs. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211107