9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 10.4.2012. The Appellant is the assessee. The Assessment year is 2004-05. 2. In the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant, a substantial question of law would arise for consideration and that is whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the Appellant is not entitled to deduct Rs,.27,07,130/- by way of bonds, debentures unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act with effect from 1.4.1989, has been omitted from consideration. Thirdly, in this case there was no dispute that the debt has been written off as bad in the accounts of the appellant-assessee. For all these reasons denial of the claim is untenable in law. The appeal deserves to be admitted. 4. It is not possible to accept these contentions for more than reason. The attempt is to have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal has found that the assessee was doing business with its sister concern namely Sovereign Nariman Broking (P) Ltd whereas Sovereign Nariman Finvest Limited was acting as the assessee company's sub broker. That company was supposed to pay the assessee company Rs. 37.93 lacs till May 2003. From June 2003 to August 2003 the company made certain payments and in August, 2003 when the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is a controversy or the debt written off as bad in the accounts being required to be established as indeed bad debt. This is a controversy where the claim of bad debts was raised to avoid tax liability. That having been proved and the entire version is termed as a mere eye-wash, that this is not a fit case where substantial questions of law arise for determination in this Appeal. The Appeal is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
