https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56241 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's bad debt claim, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It found the debt to be bad based on evidence presented, noting the amended Section 36(1)(vii) requirements. The Tribunal also ruled that the Departmental Representative lacked authority to file the application under Section 254. Emphasizing strict compliance, it held the application as without jurisdiction. Procedural requirements under Sections 254 and 256 were highlighted, with the Tribunal underscoring adherence to statutory provisions. The Tribunal concluded by affirming its earlier order and emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance to prevent misuse of authority. en-us Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Dec 2010 16:12:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56241 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the assessee's bad debt claim, rejecting the Revenue's appeal. It found the debt to be bad based on evidence presented, noting the amended Section 36(1)(vii) requirements. The Tribunal also ruled that the Departmental Representative lacked authority to file the application under Section 254. Emphasizing strict compliance, it held the application as without jurisdiction. Procedural requirements under Sections 254 and 256 were highlighted, with the Tribunal underscoring adherence to statutory provisions. The Tribunal concluded by affirming its earlier order and emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance to prevent misuse of authority. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 10 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56241