https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432695 The High Court held that the appellant incorrectly debited an amount as diminution in value of repossessed stock, which was not an allowable expenditure, leading to an erroneous assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax rightfully invoked Section 263, directing the revision of the assessment to add back the debited amount. The court also ruled against the appellant regarding the deductibility of diminution in value of repossessed vehicles as a loss, emphasizing that estimated losses based on projected market value do not entitle the appellant to claim deduction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 29 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2023 22:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432695 The High Court held that the appellant incorrectly debited an amount as diminution in value of repossessed stock, which was not an allowable expenditure, leading to an erroneous assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax rightfully invoked Section 263, directing the revision of the assessment to add back the debited amount. The court also ruled against the appellant regarding the deductibility of diminution in value of repossessed vehicles as a loss, emphasizing that estimated losses based on projected market value do not entitle the appellant to claim deduction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 29 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432695