https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244486 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant concerning the disallowance of bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii), clarifying that bad debts not covered under (viia) are deductible under (vii). However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the leave encashment claim under Section 43B(f) due to the continued applicability of the section. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision to add the trade surplus on the sale of jewellery as income was upheld, resulting in a mixed outcome for the appellant and the Revenue in this case. en-us Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244486 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant concerning the disallowance of bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii), clarifying that bad debts not covered under (viia) are deductible under (vii). However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the leave encashment claim under Section 43B(f) due to the continued applicability of the section. Additionally, the Tribunal's decision to add the trade surplus on the sale of jewellery as income was upheld, resulting in a mixed outcome for the appellant and the Revenue in this case. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244486