9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction u/s 10(1), 36 or 37(1). Interest paid on loan taken for the purpose of business - assessee contending allowance u/s 57 - Held that:- Each item of expenditure had been discussed by CIT(A). In the absence of verification of details, such expenses could not be allowed at the appellate stage. Further, expenses were not shown in the P/L A/c and was thus not allowable - Decided against the assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 114 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2012 - Sunil Ambwani, Aditya Nath Mittal, JJ. Petitioner Counsel :- Shakeel Ahmad Respondent Counsel :- Bharat Ji Agrawal,C.S.C.,R.K. Upadhaya We have heard Sri Shakeel Ahmad for the appellant-assessee. Sri R.K. Upadhya appears for respondent-department. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i R.K. Upadhya appearing for the revenue submits that the alleged embezzlement ; was made by the employee of the assessee of which FIR ; was lodged. A part of the amount was recovered. The assessee did not produce any material ; to establish that he had terminated ; the services of the employee, and had ; taken any steps to recover the amount ; from him. In the circumstances, the amount lost could neither be treated as bad debt, or trading loss. He has relied upon the decisions in Chudgar and Co. Pvt Ltd Vs. Assistant ; Commissioner of Income Tax [(2003) 263 ITR 324 (Bom)] and Dinesh Mills Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(2002) 256 ITR 673 (Guj.)]. In Chudgar and Co. Pvt Ltd., the employee had embezzled cash, for which the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as no material to show that any effort was made by the assessee, to recover the amount. He did not file any application before the concerned Magistrate, for releasing the part of the recovered amount. The letter of termination of the employee, or ; any notice or ; suit to recover the amount from him was not produced. Further there was nothing to show that as to how the loss, which took place in the year 1983-84, was claimed in the year 1990-91. The loss, could neither be allowed as deduction under Section 10 (1), or expenses allowed for business under Section 37 (1) of the Act. ; There was no relationship of debtor or creditor nor the amount was lost in the course of business. In Commissioner of Income-Tax U.P. Vs. Nainital Bank Ltd, (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
