TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (9) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as deleted the addition of Rs. 5,66,845 made by the AO on account of outstanding liabilities written off. 2. The assessee has filed the cross-objection justifying the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,66,845. The assessee has also stated that the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assertion to the effect that the liabilities were not actually written off in the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, the learned CIT(A) held that there was no cessation/remission of liabilities during the asst. yr. 1989-90 and as such the amount could not be charged to tax in the asst. yr. 1989-90. The assessee also contended that there was no effective cessation of liabilities and as such the provisions of s. 41(1) of the Act were not attracted. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee. Not only this, we hold that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. wherein Their Lordships have held that the mere fact that the assessee had made an entry of transaction in its account unilaterally would not enable the Department to show that s. 41(1) of the Act would apply and the amount should be in....