https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20471 Loss of stock-in-trade caused by embezzlement was deductible in the year the loss was actually suffered, even if the fraud was detected later, because detection affects recovery efforts, not the timing of the business loss. Remuneration of an employee-director was governed by section 40(c) and not section 40A(5), following the binding Supreme Court position applied in the text. Additional payment by way of penalty for delayed sales tax was not allowable as a deduction, being covered by existing High Court authority. en-us Fri, 03 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:41:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20471 Loss of stock-in-trade caused by embezzlement was deductible in the year the loss was actually suffered, even if the fraud was detected later, because detection affects recovery efforts, not the timing of the business loss. Remuneration of an employee-director was governed by section 40(c) and not section 40A(5), following the binding Supreme Court position applied in the text. Additional payment by way of penalty for delayed sales tax was not allowable as a deduction, being covered by existing High Court authority. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20471