| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 1969 2009 SLD 1969 (2009) 311 ITR 401 |
Delhi High Court
IT APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2006, OCTOBER 3, 2007
MADAN B. LOKUR AND DR. S. MURALIDHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IT APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2006, OCTOBER 3, 2007
MADAN B. LOKUR AND DR. S. MURALIDHAR, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Deprecated: preg_match(): Passing null to parameter #2 ($subject) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 411
Deprecated: htmlspecialchars(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 435
Law:
Section:
[2008] 166 Taxman 161 (Delhi)/[2009] 311 ITR 401 (Delhi)/[2008] 219 CTR 308 (Delhi) [2008] 166 TAXMAN 161 (DELHI) HIGH COURT OF DELHI Commissioner of Income-tax * v. R.G. Scientific Enterprises (P.) Ltd. MADAN B. LOKUR AND DR. S. MURALIDHAR, JJ. IT APPEAL NO. 1473 OF 2006 OCTOBER 3, 2007 Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts - Assessment year 1995-96 - Two Directors had, on behalf of assessee-company, made down payment of Rs. 9 lakhs to one company 'K' for purchase of a premises for assessee - Later, they resigned and transaction for said purchase could not be completed - Since 'K' refused to return money, after waiting for three years, on advice of its auditors, assessee wrote off said amount as bad debt - Assessing Officer disallowed claim - Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed appeal filed by assessee by holding that since money was paid for purchase of a capital asset and after purchase would have been shown in balance sheet as such, said sum constituted a capital loss and not a business loss - Tribunal took view that since asset was in fact not purchased and any hope of money being recovered was lost, said sum constituted only a business loss and had to be allowed as such - Letter written by assessee to Assessing Officer revealed that amount had been advanced to 'K' for purchase of a capital asset for assessee - Whether conclusion arrived at by Tribunal that non-recovery of said sum was a business loss was contrary to assessee's letter which made position explicit that it was advanced for purchase of a capital asset - Held, yes - Whether, therefore Commissioner (Appeals) was justified - Held, yes CASE REFERRED TO CIT v. Abdullabhai Abdulkadar [1961] 41 ITR 545 (SC) [Para 5]. Ms. Sonia Mathur for the Appellant. Satyen Sethi for the Respondent. ORDER 1. In this appeal under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), the revenue has challenged the dated 24-2-2006 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "F" ('Tribunal') in ITA No. 4045/Delhi/1999 for the assessment year 1995-96. 2. Admit. 3. The following question of law arises for consideration : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492