Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: human errors in Harshad J. Choksi vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 19 December, 1994Matching Fragments
(b) Incorrect execution of orders in relation to quantity and/or price limits;
(c) Non-confirmation of a properly executed sauda;
(d) Wrong confirmation of sauda to third party.
16. Considering the turnover of the assessee, the amount shown as vandah transaction was stated to be normal. The dispute was caused due to human error. At page 45 of the paper book, details are filed. In the said details, the name of the scrip, rate, party for which transaction was executed, loss and reasons for vandah, are described. The loss was therefore claimed to be allowable under the laws.