https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37349 In a tax reference on bad-debt deductions, the Bombay HC held that interference with the Tribunal's finding was warranted only if the view was perverse, unsupported by evidence, or one no reasonable person could reach. Applying that standard, the Court found no legal error in disallowing the first bad-debt claim, as the assessee failed to show perversity or absence of evidence. It also upheld disallowance of the second claim because the record showed the debtor-company had no meaningful assets and the alleged revival efforts were vague, allowing the Tribunal to conclude the debt had become irrecoverable before the relevant assessment year. Costs were awarded against the assessee. en-us Fri, 06 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Mar 2010 12:07:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37349 In a tax reference on bad-debt deductions, the Bombay HC held that interference with the Tribunal's finding was warranted only if the view was perverse, unsupported by evidence, or one no reasonable person could reach. Applying that standard, the Court found no legal error in disallowing the first bad-debt claim, as the assessee failed to show perversity or absence of evidence. It also upheld disallowance of the second claim because the record showed the debtor-company had no meaningful assets and the alleged revival efforts were vague, allowing the Tribunal to conclude the debt had become irrecoverable before the relevant assessment year. Costs were awarded against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 06 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37349