BADRIDAS DAGA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

CIVIL APPEAL No. 149/1956Supreme Court[1959] 1 S.C.R. 69025 April 1958Bench: 3 JudgesAuthor: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR, P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A.K. SARKAR13 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Badridas Daga, a proprietor of a firm dealing in money-lending, shares, and bullion, managed his business through agents. In the assessment year relevant to November 15, 1944, to November 23, 1944, his Bombay agent, Chandratan, who held a power-of-attorney with extensive management powers including bank account operation, withdrew Rs. 2,30,636-4-0. Chandratan used these funds for his personal debts. The assessee recovered Rs. 28,000 from the agent, and the remaining Rs. 2,02,442-13-9 was written off as irrecoverable. The dispute before the Income-tax authorities and subsequently the High Court concerned the deductibility of this irrecoverable amount.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the misappropriated amount is not allowable as a bad debt under Section 10(2)(xi) because a debt arises from a contract, and misappropriation is a breach of obligation, not a contractual debt. It is also not allowable as a business expense under Section 10(2)(xv). However, the Court ruled that the loss resulting from the misappropriation by the agent, who was authorized to operate bank accounts and manage the business, is a loss incidental to the carrying on of the business. Therefore, it is deductible in computing the profits under Section 10(1) of the Act. The Court distinguished the case of Curtis v. J. & G. Oldfield, Limited, noting that the nature of the business (money-lending vs. wine and spirit) and the agent's authority are crucial. The Court agreed with decisions in Venkatachalapathy Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, and Motipur Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The appeal was allowed, and the reference was answered in the affirmative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the sum of Rs. 2,02,442-13-9, being part of the amount embezzled by the assessee's agent, is allowable as a deduction under Section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as a trading loss, or under the general principles of determining profit and loss, or under Section 10(2)(xv) as a business expense. Assessee's contentions: The amount is deductible as a trading loss under Section 10(1) or as a business expense under Section 10(2)(xv), or under general principles of profit computation. Revenue's contentions: The amount is not deductible. The High Court held that the case was governed by the decision in Curtis v. J. & G. Oldfield, Limited, and answered the question against the appellant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(1),Section 10(2)(xi),Section 10(2)(xv)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] z958

As regards the Madhya Pradesh Act we likewise declare that it is constitutionally valid in so far as it Mnhd. Hanij Quareshi prohibits the slaughter of cows of all ages and calves v. of cows, male and female, but that it is void in so far The State of Biha• as it totally prohibits the slaughter of breeding bulls - and working bullocks without prescribing any test or Da' c. J. requirement as to their age or usefulness. W c also hold that the Act is valid in so far as it regulates the slaughter of other animals under certificates granted by the authorities mentioned therein. In the premises we direct the respondent States not ~ April :15. to enforce their respective Acts in so far as they have ' just been declared voitl by us. The parties will bear and pay their own costs of these applications. Petitions partly allowed . • BADRIDAS DAGA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (VENKATARAMA AIYAR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAR JJ.) Income Tax-Deduction-Misappropriation by employee-Loss incidental to the conduct of the business--Indian Income-tax Act, I922 (II of I922), s. IO(I), (z)(xi), (z)(xv). The appellant engage

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 10(1)

All 388 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →