What is Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A business loss arising from employee embezzlement or fraud is deemed to have occurred only when the employer becomes aware of it and realizes that the embezzled amounts cannot be recovered.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115-P, Section 143(3), Section 250, Section 10, Section 10(1), Section 115-O.

Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (56 ITR 1)

Q: How many judgments cite Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT?

46 judgments on BharatTax cite Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT (56 ITR 1), spanning 2016 to 2025.

JCIT(OSD) Central Circle 1, Jhandewalan vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 1085/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

…d on account of shortage of stock .is a fully allowable deduction and the primary case regarding this issue is that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badri Das Daga vs. CTT 1958 AIR 783 34 ITR and Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 56 ITR 1 also: 1. Ram Chander Shivnarayan vs. CIT 111 ITR 263 (SC), 2. Lord's Berry Farm Ltd, vs. CIT 27 ITR 700 (Mum.) 17 CO No. 36/Del/2024 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. 3. GG DandekarMachine Works Ltd. vs. CIT 114 CTR 190 (Bom.) 4. Circular No.13 (C.No.27 (29-IT/43) dated 24.5.1994. 5. Nikon Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Appeal No.ITA 6115/De//2…

ACIT 2(2)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. National Peroxide Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 2816/Mum/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 2816/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeacit 2(2)(1) Mumbai Vs National Peroxide Limited 4Th Floor, Naville House, J N Heredia Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 Pan: Aabcn7072K

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh TharFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR

Section 115Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 43B

…ce the above circulars were issued, the Supreme Court has further considered the matter and laid down the law in this regard in the following two decisions in Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 and Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1. In the first case, the Supreme Court has affirmed the view that the loss resulting from embezzlement by an employee or agent of a business is admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the 1922 Act [corresponding to section 28 of the 1961 Act] if it arises out of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. In the second case, the…

Devi Agro Industries, Nizambad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 783/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.783/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Devi Agro Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 1 Pan:Aaffd9813M Nizamabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7/4/2025 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.AR

Section 10(1)Section 147Section 28Section 37(1)

…s is admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the 1922 Act, corresponding to section 28 of the Act, if it arises out of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. In the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Court held that the loss must be deemed to have arisen only when the employer comes to know about it and realizes that the amounts embezzled cannot be recovered. Page 6 of 8 ITA No 783 of 2025 Devi Agro Industries 12. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) that it…

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Adnl. CIT Special Range 6, New Delhi

ITA 1158/DEL/2023[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271(1)(c)

…r as business loss resulted due to frauds committed by some of employees. He placed reliance on following decisions: i. Badri Das Daga, 34 ITR 10 (SC), ii. J & K Bank Ltd. order dated 29.08.2017 in ITA No.17/2007 (J& K), iii. Associated Banking Corp. of India 56 ITR 1 (SC) and iv. Standard Chartered Bank, ITA No. 884/Mum/2003 order dated 29.08.2017 (ITAT). 6. The Ld. CIT-DR defended impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of both appeals. 7. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on records. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 01.02.2017 in ITA No. 1517/Del/2013 in the present case, re…

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

ITA 1717/DEL/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 271(1)(c)

…r as business loss resulted due to frauds committed by some of employees. He placed reliance on following decisions: i. Badri Das Daga, 34 ITR 10 (SC), ii. J & K Bank Ltd. order dated 29.08.2017 in ITA No.17/2007 (J& K), iii. Associated Banking Corp. of India 56 ITR 1 (SC) and iv. Standard Chartered Bank, ITA No. 884/Mum/2003 order dated 29.08.2017 (ITAT). 6. The Ld. CIT-DR defended impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of both appeals. 7. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on records. The Tribunal, vide its order dated 01.02.2017 in ITA No. 1517/Del/2013 in the present case,…

Devi Agro Industries, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 802/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 801/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Devi Agro Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-2 [Pan No.Aaffd9813M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 802/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Devi Agro Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-1 [Pan No.Aaffd9813M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…s is admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the 1922 Act, corresponding to section 28 of the Act, if it arises out of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. In the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Court held that the loss must be deemed to have arisen only when the employer comes to know about it and realizes that the amounts embezzled cannot be recovered. 12. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) that it would be wrong to say that irrespective of other consid…

Devi Agro Industries, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 801/HYD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 801/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Devi Agro Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-2 [Pan No.Aaffd9813M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent आ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 802/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Devi Agro Industries Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-1 [Pan No.Aaffd9813M] Hyderabad अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

…s is admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the 1922 Act, corresponding to section 28 of the Act, if it arises out of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. In the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1, the Hon'ble Court held that the loss must be deemed to have arisen only when the employer comes to know about it and realizes that the amounts embezzled cannot be recovered. 12. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) that it would be wrong to say that irrespective of other consid…

Sms Tolls and Developers, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

ITA 348/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(22)(e)

…part of accumulated profit. As such, as observed by the Tribunal, the issue is already settled by the Supreme Court against the Revenue in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of Ind. Ltd. V Is. Commissioner of Income- Tax, Bombay reported in (1965) Vol.56 ITR 1 (SC) by which, the view taken that the profit accrues when the books of account are closed." 8. According to the Ld. AR, it is well-settled that the profit will accrue only when there is a right to receive the same. And since in this case, the right to receive the profits didn't accrue on 31.03.2012 when M/s. Sony Mony Developers Pvt. Ltd. determine…

Anjappan Rangasmy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 321/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 320/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Centrl Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 319/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 318/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. Dcitcentral Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 317/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 316/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 307/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 306/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Ciorcle-1(3_, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 305/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 304/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 303/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 302/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.301/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.302 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.303/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.304 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.305/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.306 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.307 /Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 8. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.316/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 9. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.317/Chny/2024 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri R.Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. Sr.DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 24Section 54Section 80CSection 90A

…siness and this should be allowed as deduction in the year in which it was discovered. The aforesaid circular was issued by considering the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Naga (34 ITR 10) and Associated Banking Corp. of India Ltd. (56 ITR 1). 9.3 However, Ld. CIT(A) chose to confirm the action of Ld. AO on the ground that the assessee has not produced acceptable evidences. Further, the assessee could not establish that the said embezzlement happened out of royalty income and not out of other capital funds. Therefore, such a loss could not be allowed u/s 37 or any other provision. Aggr…

Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

What is Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT

JCIT(OSD) Central Circle 1, Jhandewalan vs. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ACIT 2(2)(1) Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. National Peroxide Limited, Mumbai

Devi Agro Industries, Nizambad vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nizamabad

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Adnl. CIT Special Range 6, New Delhi

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-17(2), New Delhi

Devi Agro Industries, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hyderabad

Devi Agro Industries, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hyderabad

Sms Tolls and Developers, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Nagpur

Anjappan Rangasmy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Centrl Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. Dcitcentral Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Ciorcle-1(3_, Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle -1 (3), Chennai