Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4786
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
461 to 480 of 95715 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
