Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4788
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
581 to 600 of 95752 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 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
