TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (2) TMI 483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... according to us, arise in the instant case. The reasons for arriving at this conclusion are given hereinafter. 2. In order to deal with the issues raised in the appeal the following brief facts require to be noted. The assessee which is a company was incorpo-rated on September 22, 1994. The assessee claimed that it was in the busi-ness of real estate and investment. 3. On October 31, 2002, the assessee filed a return declaring a loss of Rs.52,46,330. The assessee's case was picked up for scrutiny and accord-ingly, a notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response thereto the representative of the assessee furnished details and answered queries raised by the Assessing Officer. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aced on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger and Sons Ltd. [1996] 222 ITR 344 (SC) ; and (iv) lastly, the assessee's claim for deduction of interest paid to the bank amounting to Rs. 69,02,336 was disallowed on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove that the loan taken by it from the bank had been utilized for the purposes of the assessee's business. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reversed the findings of the Assessing Officer on all the four issues referred to above. The Revenue being aggrieved preferred an appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be allowed as a bad debt under the provisions of section 36(1)(vii) of the Act since the said sum had not been taken into account in computing the income of the earlier years and hence the conditions prescribed under section 36(2) of the Act were not fulfilled ; the said loss, however, could be treated as business loss since it was occasioned in the course of business carried on by the assessee. 8. The third issue which pertained to the addition of a sum of Rs.1,01,47,264 under section 41(1) of the Act ; the Tribunal observed that since neither the assessee had claimed the said sum as an expenditure in the earlier years nor had the assessee denied its liability to pay the said sum the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act were no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as stock-in-trade since the year of purchase, i.e., the assessment year 1998-99. Furthermore, as noticed by the Tribunal, income had been assessed as profits from business. The Tribunal noted that not only expenses but also brought forward business losses had been allowed by the Assessing Officer. No infirmity is found in respect of the said issue. 11. As regards the second issue once again the Tribunal correctly appreci-ated the issue with respect to loss incurred by the assessee on account of refund of advance by Sh. Ved Chaudhary as being in the nature of business loss. It was vehemently argued before us by the learned counsel for the Revenue that this was a plea taken by the assessee for the first time before the Tribunal. The....