2006 (2) TMI 61

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal was justified in allowing the deduction amounting to Rs. 4,13,108 treating it to be bad debts, as required under section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act ?" 2 Heard Shri R. L. Jain, learned senior counsel with Ku. V. Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri D. K. Chhabra, learned counsel for the respondent. 3 At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee/respondent placing reliance on section 260A(4) of the Act and the decision of Supreme Court in Travancore Tea Estates Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1998] 233 ITR 203 contended by raising an objection that the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and, secondly, the question framed supra, does not satisfy the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....th this issue if urged by the respondent at the time of hearing notwithstanding the fact that we have admitted the appeal and framed substantial question. 6 The question involved in this appeal relates to certain debts being declared as bad debts by the assessee in the assessment year in question and in consequence written off in the books of account. This issue was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraphs 17 and 18 as follows : "17. The next grievance of the assessee is that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in maintaining disallowance of bad debts of Rs. 4,33,776. 18. We have heard the arguments advanced by the parties. We have also perused the orders of the authorities below. The Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 198....