2022 (10) TMI 907

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....005-06 respectively. 2. By the impugned common order, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal disallowed the appellant/assessee's claim for protection under Section 41 of the Income Tax Act,1961, in short, ''the Act''. 3. The specific case of the appellant is that during those years the appellant recovered the bad debts of the companies, which got amalgamated with the appellant company, and, therefore, they are not taxable in the hands of the appellant and that the appellant was not the assessee for the purpose under Section 41 of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions : (1) Commissioner of Income Tax v. P.K.Kaimal, (1980) 4 Taxman 319 (Mad.). (2) Saras....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt in Commissioner of Income Tax v. T.Veerabhadra Rao, (1985) 155 ITR 152 (SC). 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 7. For the Assessment Years 2001-2002 and 2003-2004, the issue is now relegated to the Tribunal in the light of T.C.A.No.1938 of 2008. The appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration of this Court : (1) Whether the order of the Tribunal is perverse in holding that the amounts recovered in respect of bad written off by the amalgamating companies is taxable in the hands of the amalgamated company i.e., assessee company under Section 41 (4) of the Income Tax Act ? ....