https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25679 A trading-loss claim under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was confined to the actual expenditure incurred, because the assessee had not paid or recorded the balance amount as a book debit. The High Court held that only the forfeiture of the security deposit constituted deductible expenditure under section 37(1); the larger claimed amount did not meet the statutory requirement of expenditure actually incurred. Deduction was therefore restricted to the forfeited deposit alone, and no excess claim was allowable. en-us Fri, 19 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 Jan 2010 11:41:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25679 A trading-loss claim under the Income-tax Act, 1961 was confined to the actual expenditure incurred, because the assessee had not paid or recorded the balance amount as a book debit. The High Court held that only the forfeiture of the security deposit constituted deductible expenditure under section 37(1); the larger claimed amount did not meet the statutory requirement of expenditure actually incurred. Deduction was therefore restricted to the forfeited deposit alone, and no excess claim was allowable. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 19 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25679