Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Transfer pricing and tax deductions upheld on established principles, while employee contributions and warranty provisions returned for fresh examinat...
Captive transfer pricing relies on industrial consumer tariffs, while genuine quotations can benchmark effluent treatment transfers under the Other Me...
Specific tariff classification for ophthalmic instruments and extended limitation principles determine the treatment of duty demands, confiscation, an...
Integrated golf function determines classification, placing launch monitors and simulators under other golf equipment rather than measuring instrument...
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 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
