9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 67,153. It was stated that ladies garments were exported by the assessee company and sold to a French firm M/s Netter & Cie but the buyer did not take the delivery of the goods on the ground of the same being defective. Further, according to the assessee, it agreed to sell the said goods to the said buyer at a reduced price of about 50 per cent as was proposed by the buyer and as such the goods were sold at a reduced price, resulting in loss of Rs. 67,153. The IAC (Asst) did not allow the claim. He observed that no claim in respect of any foreign party, to whom the goods have had been exported fromIndia, could be allowed unless the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had given permission to write it off. He further observed that the amount w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as to when the agreement took place between the assessee and the foreign buyer and what was import thereof which resulted in the loss claimed by the assessee as trading loss. Learned counsel for the assessee has referred to a letter of Grindlays Bank dt.1st May, 1987, confirming forwarding of GRI forms to RBI with their return dt.31st March, 1987. In the said details of the GRI forms, it is stated that GRI NO. 124298 for Rs. 49,632.22 pertains to the claim. He has also referred to letter dt.28th Feb., 1987of the RBI,New Delhi, addressed to "Grindlays Bank, referring to certain letter dt.29th Jan., 1987and mentioning that the RBI have treated the matter as in order. But all these documents lead us no where. There is no clear evidence befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the assessee, should have considered the said claim of Rs. 10,000 when finally the assessment was completed at positive income. The IAC (Asst) having not done so was requested by way on an application under s. 154 to rectify the said appeal separately, since the point is being considered in the main appeal, arising out of the assessment order itself. 5. The CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee in appeal against the assessment order, on the ground that no evidence was produced to show that the provisions of s. 80-G(5) were satisfied in the case of Foundations to whom the donations were made. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the assessee, before, us, that the certificates under s. 88 in favour of the said two Founda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
