2011 (5) TMI 1042

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as business expenditure of the assessee? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35-B of expenditure amounting to Rs. 3,30,063/- on the travelling of assessee's employees to Kenya and holding that the said expenditure was only a part of cost of providing services in which the assessee deals? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- could not be allowed as bad debt and deducted for determining the assessee's income from business?   4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as an advance in 1973 to one M/s. Parekh and Co. for supply of machinery. The machinery in issue, it is submitted, was not supplied and hence the amount was written of as bad debt in the year 1981-1982 relating to the Assessment Year 1982-1983.   Mr. Sahni, on the other hand, submitted that since the amount was never shown as a trading receipt as held by the Tribunal, it could not have been treated as bad debt. Mr. Monga in rejoinder stressed that the amount was used as circulating capital and hence he should be allowed to write off the said amount. It is his submission that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is corre....