https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22164 The Delhi HC treated the dispute over Rs. 3,41,655 as one of fact, not law. It accepted the Tribunal's finding that the amount arose from a forward transaction in goods, had been credited in the relevant account, was admitted by the assessee in correspondence as earned, and was even claimed as a bad debt, which supported accrual of income. The Court also upheld the finding that the amount belonged to the assessee and not to Smt. Gitesh Bansal. As both issues depended on evidence and factual appreciation, no referable question of law arose and the petition failed. en-us Thu, 23 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:33:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22164 The Delhi HC treated the dispute over Rs. 3,41,655 as one of fact, not law. It accepted the Tribunal's finding that the amount arose from a forward transaction in goods, had been credited in the relevant account, was admitted by the assessee in correspondence as earned, and was even claimed as a bad debt, which supported accrual of income. The Court also upheld the finding that the amount belonged to the assessee and not to Smt. Gitesh Bansal. As both issues depended on evidence and factual appreciation, no referable question of law arose and the petition failed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22164