https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18146 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the necessity of providing evidence that a debt became bad in the relevant assessment year for claiming bad debt under Section 36(2)(iii). It was ruled that a claim for bad debt cannot be raised for the first time in rectification proceedings without supporting evidence in the assessment order or submitted documents. The court highlighted the requirement of a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under section 154, which was deemed lacking in this case due to insufficient documentation and timing of events. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Sep 2009 11:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18146 The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the necessity of providing evidence that a debt became bad in the relevant assessment year for claiming bad debt under Section 36(2)(iii). It was ruled that a claim for bad debt cannot be raised for the first time in rectification proceedings without supporting evidence in the assessment order or submitted documents. The court highlighted the requirement of a mistake apparent from the record for rectification under section 154, which was deemed lacking in this case due to insufficient documentation and timing of events. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18146