https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38557 A sum found to be criminally misappropriated by a director was not treated as a loan, advance, or deemed dividend under section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the statutory condition of a company payment by way of loan or advance was absent. The same factual finding also defeated taxation under section 2(6C)(iii), since that provision applies only where a benefit or perquisite is obtained from the company on some legal or arranged basis; unauthorised embezzlement does not qualify. On that reasoning, the reassessment additions failed and the amounts were treated as embezzled funds, not taxable corporate benefits. en-us Wed, 07 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:15:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38557 A sum found to be criminally misappropriated by a director was not treated as a loan, advance, or deemed dividend under section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because the statutory condition of a company payment by way of loan or advance was absent. The same factual finding also defeated taxation under section 2(6C)(iii), since that provision applies only where a benefit or perquisite is obtained from the company on some legal or arranged basis; unauthorised embezzlement does not qualify. On that reasoning, the reassessment additions failed and the amounts were treated as embezzled funds, not taxable corporate benefits. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 07 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38557