The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune v. Shri Rajendra K. Shah (Huf
High Court
In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune v. Shri Rajendra K. Shah (Huf
Date of order
—
Assessment year(s)
2002-03
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii, Pune v. Shri Rajendra K. Shah (Huf, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
ttm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.3524 OF 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, PuneVs.Shri Rajendra K. Shah (HUF)
.. Appellant
.. Respondent.
Mr.Vimal Gupta for the appellant
CORAM: J.P. DEVADHAR & K.K. TATED, JJ.DATE: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2011.
P.C.
1. Not on board. By consent, taken up for admission.
2. Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the disallowance of the amount ‘written off as bad debts’ made in A.T. 2001-02, is the question raised in this appeal.
3.The ITAT in para 5 of its order has recorded a finding that the assessee had taken a bonafide view to write off the amount of Rs.13,02,558/- out of the transportation charges receivable from M/s.Monalisa Cement Co.Pvt.Ltd and that on receiving the said amount in the subsequent
year i.e. in A.Y. 2002-03, the assessee has offered the said amount to tax and the ITAT has confirmed addition of that amount in A.Y. 2002-03.
4.In this view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain this appeal.
5.Appeal is dismissed.
(J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)
(K.K. TATED, 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.