The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji Goa v. Shri. Narayan Rajaram Bandekar
High Court
10 Apr 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hcbgoa
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji Goa v. Shri. Narayan Rajaram Bandekar
Date of order
10 Apr 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Panaji Goa v. Shri. Narayan Rajaram Bandekar, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Issue: According to the appellant, the following substantial questionsof law arise in the present appeal : (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that baddebts written off of Rs.82,21,280/- is allowable ?
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
TAX APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2013
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI GOA Versus
SHRI. NARAYAN RAJARAM BANDEKAR
... Appellant... Respondent
Ms. Asha A. Dessai, Advocate for the appellant.Mr. Agnelo F. Diniz, Advocate for the respondent.
P.C.
-Coram:A. P. LAVANDE &U. V. BAKRE, JJ.-Date:10th April, 2013
Heard Advocate Ms. Dessai for the appellant and Advocate Mr.Diniz for the respondent.
2. By this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act
('the Act' for short), the appellant takes exception to the order passedby Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT' for short) in I.T. AppealNo.40 of 2012 by which the appeal preferred by the revenue againstthe order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, has beendismissed.
3. According to the appellant, the following substantial questionsof law arise in the present appeal :
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that baddebts written off of Rs.82,21,280/- is allowable ?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that priorperiod expenditure of Rs.1,09,82,382/- is an allowable expenditure ?
4. Insofar as the first substantial question of law is concerned, thesame is squarely covered against the revenue by the judgment of theApex Court in the case of T. R. F Limited Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax; (2010)323 ITR 397 (SC).
5. Insofar as second substantial question of law is concerned, inour considered view, the view taken by the Commissioner of IncomeTax which has been confirmed by ITAT cannot be faulted and boththe Commissioner of Income Tax as well as ITAT have rightlyplaced reliance upon Section 43B of the Act to allow deduction inrespect of the interest paid by the assessee. Therefore, in our view, nosubstantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Hence, theappeal is rejected.
A. P. LAVANDE, J.
SMA
U. V. BAKRE, 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.