Dismissing the appeal the court held that the submission of the aassessee was vague and general in nature in respect of five entries, in respect of the remaining entries there was lack of clarity as to the nature of the transaction. Oder of lower Authorities was affirmed. (AY. 2001-02)
Katti Ma v. Dy. CIT (2023) 453 ITR 258 / 293 Taxman 77 (Mad)(HC)
S. 36(1)(vii) : Bad debt -Trading loss –Stock in trade – No evidence to demonstrate nature of business advances -Question of fact -Disallowance of claim was affirmed. [S. 28(i), 36(2), 260A]