COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. NILOFER I.SINGH

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 154 / 2008HC Delhi27 August 200811 pages
For Petitioner: PREM LATA BANSAL
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal's finding of fact, based on a correct appreciation of the law, was upheld. The High Court noted that the RBI's decision for permission was made in the relevant year, and the assessee only needed to write off the debt in its accounts for that year.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against an ITAT order concerning the assessment year 1998-99. The core issue revolved around the write-off of a debt by the assessee. The revenue argued that permission for write-off was communicated in the subsequent year, making it irrelevant for the previous year.

What were the issues?

Whether the communication date of RBI permission for debt write-off, which fell in the subsequent year, invalidated the write-off for the relevant previous year.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 55 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

![](_page_0_Picture_1.jpeg)

THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 27.08.2008

ITA No. 154/2008

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX.

.... Appellant

-versus-

SMT. NILOFER I. SINGH

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant

Ms Prem Lata Bansal

For the Respondent

Mr Abhishek Maratha

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

- 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2. To be referred to Reporters or not? - 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

yes

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

1.

The revenue has filed this appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on 23.02.2007 in respect of the assessment year 1998-99. The learned counsel for the appellant proposed several questions but essentially two issues were canvassed before this Court. The first issue was with regard to the Tribunal

![](_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_2_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_5_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_6_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_7_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_8_Picture_1.jpeg)

2008:DHC:12005-DB

![](_page_9_Picture_1.jpeg)

![](_page_10_Picture_1.jpeg)

relevant previous year. The only argument sought to be raised on behalf of the revenue was that the Reserve Bank of India's permission had been communicated by the assessee's bank to the assessee on 05.05.1998 which was the year next to the previous year in question. It is relevant to note that the Reserve Bank of India had already taken the decision for granting permission to write off the said amount on 18.03.1998. In any event, this is not a relevant consideration inasmuch as all that the assessee had to do was to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its accounts of the relevant previous year. The Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact based upon a correct appreciation of the law. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.

14.

In view of the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

Rayn Maler

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →