https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24053 The High Court ruled against the assessee, holding that the security deposit forfeited by the Excise Department could not be claimed as permissible expenditure for the assessment year 1969-70. The Court emphasized that until a final order of forfeiture was issued, the assessee could not deduct the amount as expenditure. The Court also noted that if the assessee succeeded in a Supreme Court appeal, the State Government would have to refund the security deposit, making it impermissible as an expenditure. The decision favored the Revenue, with each party bearing its own costs. en-us Thu, 24 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:52:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24053 The High Court ruled against the assessee, holding that the security deposit forfeited by the Excise Department could not be claimed as permissible expenditure for the assessment year 1969-70. The Court emphasized that until a final order of forfeiture was issued, the assessee could not deduct the amount as expenditure. The Court also noted that if the assessee succeeded in a Supreme Court appeal, the State Government would have to refund the security deposit, making it impermissible as an expenditure. The decision favored the Revenue, with each party bearing its own costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24053