Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount embezzled by the assessee's munim and written off after partial recovery was deductible either as a business loss or under the general principles for computing business profits, including under section 10(2)(XV) of the Indian Income-tax Act.
Analysis: The assessment year was 1946-47 and the relevant accounting year was 1944-45. The munim had been entrusted with wide powers under a general power of attorney and withdrew money from the assessee's bank account for his personal liabilities. The Court distinguished losses caused by subordinates intercepting funds in the ordinary course of business from losses occurring after the money had reached the owner's control. It held that once the money had been credited to the assessee's bank account, it had reached the assessee for business purposes. The misappropriation was therefore not a trading loss merely because the munim had the authority to operate the account. The Madras decision relied on by the assessee was distinguished on the ground that, there, the funds had not reached the till before misappropriation.
Conclusion: The amount of Rs. 2,02,442-13-9 was not allowable as a deduction either as a business loss or under section 10(2)(XV) of the Indian Income-tax Act.