<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1946 (12) TMI 2 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185415</link>
    <description>A loss of stock-in-trade destroyed by accidental fire was a trading loss, not a capital loss, and was deductible in computing business profits under ordinary commercial principles unless barred by statute. The court treated fire as a business risk reflected in the trading account, noting that insurance on stock and insurance recoveries form part of the computation of real profits. The deduction was therefore allowable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Aug 2016 18:46:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=438083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1946 (12) TMI 2 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185415</link>
      <description>A loss of stock-in-trade destroyed by accidental fire was a trading loss, not a capital loss, and was deductible in computing business profits under ordinary commercial principles unless barred by statute. The court treated fire as a business risk reflected in the trading account, noting that insurance on stock and insurance recoveries form part of the computation of real profits. The deduction was therefore allowable, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 1946 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>