Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 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 
TaxTMI 
of 4881 
