https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152075 Loss of jewellery stolen from business stock-in-trade was treated as an allowable trading loss in the year of theft because the stock was incidental to the jewellery business and the later police classification as untraced related back to the burglary date. The majority also held that deduction could not be based on claimed market value; it was confined to the proved purchase cost of the stolen jewellery. On the evidence, statutory stock records, the FIR and the post-burglary inventory were relevant to identify the missing stock, while the dissent would have required further proof of theft and quantum before allowing relief. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:17:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152075 Loss of jewellery stolen from business stock-in-trade was treated as an allowable trading loss in the year of theft because the stock was incidental to the jewellery business and the later police classification as untraced related back to the burglary date. The majority also held that deduction could not be based on claimed market value; it was confined to the proved purchase cost of the stolen jewellery. On the evidence, statutory stock records, the FIR and the post-burglary inventory were relevant to identify the missing stock, while the dissent would have required further proof of theft and quantum before allowing relief. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jan 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152075