TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 276
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s. 143(3) of the Act on 05-12-2016. The grounds taken by the assessee read as under: - 1) The order of The Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the amount of investment write off which was claimed as business loss. 3) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the profit on sale of investments were being assessed as business income and hence, loss would constitute business loss. 4) The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated both investments as well as creditors were non-existent and were taken into account only for continuing from the last account made in 1998....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ventures Limited). During those proceedings, the official liquidator had sold the shares belonging to assessee during the period 2002 to 2004 and the amounts were appropriated by the Official Liquidator but no details were made available to the assessee. Therefore, it was not possible to update the accounts of the company. The balances as on 31.03.1999 were carry forward from year-to-year till 2013. After revival of the company, a review of the investments, current assets and current liabilities was made and necessary accounting entries were affected in the books of accounts during financial year 2013-14 in order to reflect the correct balances. Regarding investments written-off, it was submitted that as an investment company, the shares ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hifting of the registered office of the company for which advertisement was released in the newspaper. Similarly, other expenses were incurred in the course of business only. 3.3 However, Ld. AO held that investments written-off were capital in nature. Similarly, write-off of debtors, creditors and bank balances could not be allowed as revenue expenditure. Finally, aggregate expenditure of Rs. 266.85 Lacs was disallowed and added to assessee's income 3.4 The Ld. CIT(A) merely upheld the action of Ld. AO against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. From the fact, it emerges that the assessee ceased to function and its books of accounts, files, records and other documents were taken in posses....