https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36796 The advance had lost its original money-lending character, and the thika properties were construed as leasehold agricultural properties rather than continuing security for a debt. On that basis, the amount claimed could not be treated as an admissible bad debt or as a revenue loss under the income-tax law, because the alleged loss did not arise from a subsisting loan security. The court also declined to rely on additional letters and materials not shown to have been before the Tribunal. The claim for deduction was therefore rejected and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue. en-us Wed, 20 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Mar 2010 16:01:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36796 The advance had lost its original money-lending character, and the thika properties were construed as leasehold agricultural properties rather than continuing security for a debt. On that basis, the amount claimed could not be treated as an admissible bad debt or as a revenue loss under the income-tax law, because the alleged loss did not arise from a subsisting loan security. The court also declined to rely on additional letters and materials not shown to have been before the Tribunal. The claim for deduction was therefore rejected and the reference was answered in favour of the Revenue. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Jul 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36796