https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178393 The case involved issues regarding the period of debt write-off, genuineness of the claim, and the Assessing Officer's power to question the debt. The majority decision supported the assessee's contention that the debt was written off after two years from the advance, accepted the write-off as sufficient under section 36(1)(vii), and concluded that the AO could not question the genuineness post-amendment. As a result, the appeal by the department was dismissed. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178393 The case involved issues regarding the period of debt write-off, genuineness of the claim, and the Assessing Officer's power to question the debt. The majority decision supported the assessee's contention that the debt was written off after two years from the advance, accepted the write-off as sufficient under section 36(1)(vii), and concluded that the AO could not question the genuineness post-amendment. As a result, the appeal by the department was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178393