Find a Lawyer

I.T.AS. NOS. 1104/KB, 113/KB AND 114/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 27TH FEBRUARY, 2007. versus I.T.AS. NOS. 1104/KB, 113/KB AND 114/KB OF 2005, DECIDED ON 27TH FEBRUARY, 2007.

Bad loans from section 23 (1) (X) deductions have been written on the basis of non-acceptance of a claim for bad debts, claiming that the recovery efforts were not terminated and that the claim was premature and the Issuing Officer. It had the right to determine which bad loans to borrow. The recovery was not credible The bad was actually written on the plea that he was not recoverable The Assisi was the best judge to determine what part of his bad debts need to be written and the assessee to save only the tax. The debt could not be written off, thus, it loses much more than it has shown in order to obtain the law that it provided that it would later receive a loan in return for such. That can be included in taxable income, there was no justification for rejecting the claim filed. The appellate tribunal specifically allowed the SC appeal through the appellate tribunal, which led to the appellate tribunal remanding the case in a specific direction. The written test contained in the provisions should be examined and allowed, but the Assessing Officer, as well as the First Appellate Authority, did not observe that the claim in this regard was not in writing in relation to bad debts. tax advocates from Sakrand lawyer