2012 (9) TMI 373

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the appellant is not entitled to deduction of the 'provision' made in respect of Non Performing Assets which are considered irrecoverable?   2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in not appreciating that the provision made in respect of Non Performing Assets if not allowable as a bad debt is allowable as a business loss?   3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in treating the amount of Rs. 36,47,585/- collected as contingent deposit as Income of the Appellant?"   At the outset, Shri Preetesh Kapur, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, fairly stated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....today are pending before the High Court (some appeals, however, are pending before the Tribunal). For the assessment years 1986-87 to 1996- 97, the Tribunal has disallowed the assessee's appeals against which the assessee has filed appeals before the High Court, which are also pending. These facts concern disputes raised by the assessee concerning its sales tax liabilities with which we are not concerned in this civil appeal. According to the assessee, in order to safeguard itself against, inter alia, the said sales tax liabilities, the assessee received Rs.36,47,585/- as contingent deposits from its customers which were "refundable" if the assessee was to succeed in its challenge to the levy of the said sales tax. According to the assessee....