Case LawHigh Court › Itl/55/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Itl/55/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. M/S Bachhuka Brothers, Akola

High Court 15 Sep 2011 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · testcase
Parties
Itl/55/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. M/S Bachhuka Brothers, Akola
Date of order
15 Sep 2011
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itl/55/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, Nagpur v. M/S Bachhuka Brothers, Akola, the High Court (2011) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 55/2010.Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Nagpur-VERSUS-M/s. Bachhuka Brothers, Akola. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders of directionsand Registrar's Orders. Court's or Judge's orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI& A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2011. Heard Shri A. Parchure, learned Counsel for appellant and Shri N.S. Bhattad, learned Counsel for respondent. Perused the assessment order as also orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Contention that debt was not bad as only period of 24 months has expired, cannot be accepted. It is apparent that after the deletion of the word 'established' w.e.f. 01.04.1989 in Section 36[1][vii] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the writing of debt as irrrecoverable is sufficient. The Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at [2010] 323 ITR 397 (T.R.F. Ltd. .vrs.Commissioner of Income Tax), has settled this controversy. Shri Parchure, learned Counsel has tried to contend that the debt has not been written of in previous year. We are not in a position to accept even this position. The assessment order on which he is placing reliance has also correctly evaluated this position. Only reason given therein, is the assessee has not waited for sufficient time for recovery of debt. We therefore, find no substantial question of law arising in this appeal for consideration. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan