Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
Misappropriation of funds by an employee led to the assessee claiming expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act, which were later discovered to be embezzlement. The assessee suffered a loss due to the employee's fraudulent actions. The CBDT Circular No. 35-D states that losses arising from embezzlement are allowable u/s 28(i) of the Act. The revenue contended that the claim should be u/s 28 instead of Section 37(1). The assessee offered the recovered amount of Rs. 229 lakhs to tax but had not recovered the impugned amount during the assessment year. The addition was unjustified as the debited amount, though not fulfilling Section 37(1) expenses, was related to an allowable embezzlement loss. Relying on Bombay Forgings Pvt Ltd and G.G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd cases, the assessee was eligible for deduction due to embezzlement loss. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee as the revenue failed to prove recovery during the assessment year.
Misappropriation of funds by an employee led to the assessee claiming expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act, which were later discovered to be embezzlement. The assessee suffered a loss due to the employee's fraudulent actions. The CBDT Circular No. 35-D states that losses arising from embezzlement are allowable u/s 28(i) of the Act. The revenue contended that the claim should be u/s 28 instead of Section 37(1). The assessee offered the recovered amount of Rs. 229 lakhs to tax but had not recovered the impugned amount during the assessment year. The addition was unjustified as the debited amount, though not fulfilling Section 37(1) expenses, was related to an allowable embezzlement loss. Relying on Bombay Forgings Pvt Ltd and G.G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd cases, the assessee was eligible for deduction due to embezzlement loss. The Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee as the revenue failed to prove recovery during the assessment year.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4780
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
