In Itxa/7020/2010 Of The Commisioner Of Income Tax- 4 Mumbai v. Shri Ramesh M. Damani, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012 P.C. :- 1.The question of law raise by the revenue in this appeal reads thus :- “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.,28,59,656...
Decision: In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
itxa7020-10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.7020 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Mumbai
..Appellant.
V/s.
Shri Ramesh M. Damani
..Respondent.
Mr. Vimal Gupta, senior Advocate for the appellant.Mr. Hiro Rai with Subhash Shetty for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND M.S. SANKLECHA, JJ.DATED : 9TH OCTOBER, 2012
P.C. :-
1.The question of law raise by the revenue in this appeal reads thus :-
“ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in deleting the addition made on account of disallowance of bad debts amounting to Rs.,28,59,656/- ignoring the finding of the AO that provisions of section 36(2) and section 36(1)(vii) do not apply in the present case ?
2.Counsel for the parties state that the aforesaid question
raised by the revenue is covered against the revenue by the decision of this Court in the case of CIT V/s. Shreyas S. Morkhia reported in (2012) 342 ITR 285 (Bom). In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.)
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
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.