9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (2) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1922, is : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 12,841 is a proper deduction as bad debt or loss incidental to the business of the assessee ? " The facts of the case, shortly stated, are as follows : The respondent carried on business as a commission agent and he was treated as agent of two non-resident principals, respectively, being Messrs. Sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted that claim on the ground that the loss had not arisen from business, profession or vocation or from carrying on of any business of money-lending or loans. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the respondent's appeal, but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, by its order dated October 5, 1956, held that the assessee's attempt to recover the debt had failed and that the loss was incident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is submission that, on the facts in the case, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar is applicable. In that case, the assessee-firm carried on business as commission agent and exported goods from India to a non-resident principal. The income-tax authorities had treated the assessee as the agent of the non-resident principal under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was, therefore, not a permissible deduction under section 10(1) of the Act. The Supreme Court further held that under clause (xi) of section 10(2) a debt was only allowable when it was a debt and arose out of and as an incident to the trade. The debt had not arisen as a result of the trade and was not allowable under section 10(2)(xi) as a bad debt. It was not an incident to the assessee's busines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
