<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (8) TMI 642 - ITAT, JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215960</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ruling that the essential conditions for claiming bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) were not met. The seized documents used to prepare a second set of accounts were deemed not regular books of account, leading to the disallowance of the bad debt claim. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189344" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 642 - ITAT, JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215960</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the findings of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ruling that the essential conditions for claiming bad debts under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) were not met. The seized documents used to prepare a second set of accounts were deemed not regular books of account, leading to the disallowance of the bad debt claim. As a result, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>