Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2003 (6) TMI 181 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal rules for Revenue in theft case, disallows loss claim. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue in all three issues. It found that no theft had been committed from the assessee's premises regarding the stock ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal rules for Revenue in theft case, disallows loss claim.

                            The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue in all three issues. It found that no theft had been committed from the assessee's premises regarding the stock worth Rs. 51,02,069. The addition of Rs. 21,39,950 in the trading account was deemed justified, and the assessee was not entitled to claim the loss of Rs. 51,02,069 in the assessment year 1992-93. The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the Revenue, concluding that the theft did not occur, the addition in the trading account was valid, and the loss claim was not permissible in the specified year.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Whether any theft has been committed from the premises of the assessee in respect of the stock worth Rs. 51,02,069Rs.
                            2. Whether the addition of Rs. 21,39,950 in the trading account made by the AO/deleted by the CIT(A) was justifiedRs.
                            3. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim a loss of Rs. 51,02,069 debited as 'insurance claim rejected' in the P&L a/c in the asst. yr. 1992-93Rs.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Whether any theft has been committed from the premises of the assessee in respect of the stock worth Rs. 51,02,069Rs.
                            The Tribunal analyzed the evidence presented by both parties. The assessee lodged an FIR about the theft, which was later reported as untraceable by the police. However, two independent surveyors appointed by the insurance company conducted detailed inquiries and concluded that no theft had occurred. They based their findings on statements from various witnesses, the feasibility of the theft logistics, and discrepancies in the stock records. The Tribunal found no serious flaws in these survey reports and concluded that no theft had been committed from the premises of the assessee. Therefore, the issue was decided against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue.

                            2. Whether the addition of Rs. 21,39,950 in the trading account made by the AO/deleted by the CIT(A) was justifiedRs.
                            The AO made an addition of Rs. 21,39,950 by applying a GP rate of 29.15% on the value of goods allegedly sold outside the books. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not claimed the loss of Rs. 51,02,069 in the assessment year under reference but included it in the closing stock as 'claim receivable.' The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the addition, considering the value of goods manufactured and reducing the amount shown in the closing stock. The GP rate should be recomputed by including the agreed addition of Rs. 12 lakhs on account of low GP. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to recompute the addition in accordance with their observations. The ground of appeal was treated as allowed.

                            3. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim a loss of Rs. 51,02,069 debited as 'insurance claim rejected' in the P&L a/c in the asst. yr. 1992-93Rs.
                            The Tribunal held that the loss claimed by the assessee does not survive as it was based on the finding that no theft had occurred. Even if the claim was genuine, the loss should have been claimed in the asst. yr. 1991-92 when the insurance company rejected the claim on 3rd Jan., 1991. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in a similar case where the loss was allowed in the year it occurred, irrespective of subsequent litigation. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the loss in the asst. yr. 1992-93. The issue was decided in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

                            Conclusion:
                            Both appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed. The Tribunal concluded that no theft had occurred, justified the addition of Rs. 21,39,950 in the trading account, and held that the assessee was not entitled to claim the loss of Rs. 51,02,069 in the asst. yr. 1992-93.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found