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.

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 301/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…

Metal Closures Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 941/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri R.E. Balasubramanyam, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R

Section 148Section 28Section 36(2)(i)

…and justification to disbelieve the findings of fact recorded by the Income-tax Officer which are affirmed by the first appellate authority. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the assessee, relying on Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1 (SC), Kothari and Sons v. CIT [1966] 61 ITR 23 (Mad) and Hopkin and Williams (Travancore) Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 76 (Ker), contended that the deduction claimed by the assessee was an admissible deduction as it was not possible to recover the loss from Sri Somani. 14. There are no two opinions about the proposition of law laid down in the aforesa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

…was not required to be included to be part of accumulated profit. And their Lordship also took note that the issue was already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the revenue in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 1, wherein the view was taken that the profit accrues when the books of account are closed. In the light of the judicial precedent laid by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. M. B. Stockholding (P) Ltd.(supra), and since no decision of jurisdictional High Court was cited in support of impugned action of Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

…was not required to be included to be part of accumulated profit. And their Lordship also took note that the issue was already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the revenue in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 1, wherein the view was taken that the profit accrues when the books of account are closed. In the light of the judicial precedent laid by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. M. B. Stockholding (P) Ltd.(supra), and since no decision of jurisdictional High Court was cited in support of impugned action of Ld. CIT(A), we are of the considered opinion t…

Rudra Industries, Nizamabad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

…ble as a deduction under section 10(1) of the 1922 Act, corresponding to section Page 4 of 7 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. 9. 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…

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2387/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A

Section 10Section 14A

…e the same is allowable as deduction under section 28/37 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)] (ii) Associated Banking Corporation of India Vs. CIT [56 ITR 1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009]. 12. In so far as write off of sundry advances of Rs…

Dawat Foods Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A

Section 10Section 14A

…e the same is allowable as deduction under section 28/37 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)] (ii) Associated Banking Corporation of India Vs. CIT [56 ITR 1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009]. 12. In so far as write off of sundry advances of Rs…

Ramesh Premji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1985/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1985/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Ramesh Premji Shah बिधम/ Dcit 3-6 Shreeji Apartments 45 Aayakar Bhavan, Marine Vs. Jp Road Andheri (W), Lines, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps2715F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Subhas Bains Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 15.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1The Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, In As Much As Upholding The Reassessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Of The It Act Dated 09.12.2019 Which Was Requested To Be Held As Illegal & Bad In Law As No Reassessment Can Be Made For Making Addition U/S 2(22)(E) Of The It Act U/S 147 Especially When The Disallowance Was Made From All The Details & Facts Available On Record And, Therefore, The Main Condition For Reopening The Case Beyond Four Years Which Is Failure On The Part Of Appellant To Disclose Fully & Truly All Material Facts Was Not Established By The Ao. Hon’Ble Itat Is Requested To Reverse The Order

For Appellant: Shri Subhas BainsFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 71

…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) Vo1.56 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. determin…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Karjat Golf Club P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 638/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.638/Mum/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-6(3)(2), Vs. Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Mumbai. Tower, 1502 B One India Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan : Aadck0915A Appellant Respondent C.O. No.236/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.638/Mum/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Karjat Golf Club P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-6(3)(2), Tower, 1502 B One India Mumbai. Bulls Centre, 841 Jupier Mills, Off Senapati Bpat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013 Pan : Aadck0915A Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Assessee By : Shri Vilesh Dalya Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Vilesh DalyaFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 143(3)

…ss incurred during the course of carrying on ordinary business placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga vs. CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC) and Associated Banking Corporation 5 C.O. No.236/MUM/2017 of India Ltd. vs. CIT, 56 ITR 1 (SC) accepting the submission of the respondent-assessee that the losses were incurred as result of misappropriation of embezzlement of funds which had been done by the Ex-CEO of the respondent-assessee company. 7. Being aggrieved the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 8. It is primarily contended t…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mandava Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 2089/HYD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Dy. C.I.T. Vs. M/S. Mandava Holdings Circle 16(2) (P) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm4964M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A.V.Raghuram, Advocate Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/07/2022 Order Per R.K. Panda, A.M This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.9.2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-4, Hyderabad Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Core Investment & Filed Its Return Of Income Admitting Total Loss At (-) Rs 1,91,29,508/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Filed Revised Return Of Income On 30.11.2014 Declaring Total Loss Of Rs.1,43,53,566/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The I.T. Act. Subsequently, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Statutory Notices Were Issued To The Assessee. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Shri A.V.Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)

…T (A) erred in law in CIT ignoring the Gujrat High Court decision in the case of vs MB Stockholding (P) Lid (2015)(64 taxman.com 138), wherein it was held that as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd vs CIT(56 ITR 1) the profit accrues when the books are closed and that the current profit is not to be included as part of accumulated profits. 7. The CIT(A) erred in accepting the contention of the assessee that the adjustment made in the security premium a/c on account of the approval of the Company's petition filed on 04.03.2014 by the High Court vide its order…

George Oakes Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1017/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1017/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008 - 09 George Oakes Ltd., The Acit, Greams Road, V. Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai -600 006. Chennai Pan: Aaacg 1659G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.06.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai In Ita No.65/Cit(A)-9/2010-11, Order Dated 10.01.2017. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Company Circle Ii(2), Chennai For The Assessment Year 2008-09 U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 16.12.2010. I.T.A. No.1017/Chny/2017 2 2. The Only Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Disallowance Made By Ao, Claimed By Assessee On Account Of Written Off Relating To Embezzlement Amounting To Rs.1,07,35,908/-.

For Appellant: Shri S. Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)

…(XL VII-20), F.No.10/48/65-IT(AI) dated 24.11.1965 and the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Shiv Narain Karmendra Narain, 277 ITR 27 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd., 56 ITR 1 confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the assessee’s claim by stating that the assessee is entitled for deduction of embezzlement loss either in the year of discovery or in the year in which the amount was crystallized or the year in which the assessee realizes that the amount cannot be recovered, whichever is later. According to CIT(A), the…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Davanagere vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Davanagere

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1403/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Op Bank Circle – 1, Limited, Davangere. Janatha Bazar Complex, Behind City Municipality, Davangere. Pan : Aaatd 6617 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, Ca Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.06.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 27.03.2019 Of Cit(A), Davangere, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. Suresh Muthukrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 36Section 36(2)Section 64

…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 Naga 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…

Avijit Dewanjee, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3249/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 250(4)

…an 167 has held that the loss from embezzlement is allowable not in the year when the embezzlement took place but in the year when such loss was ultimately discovered and quantified. The Apex Court in Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1 has held that the loss by embezzlement by an employee should be treated as incidental to the business and this loss should be allowed as a deduction in the year in which it is discovered. Even CBDT in Circular No. 35-D(XLVII-20) (F. No. 10/48/65-IT (A-I), dated November 24, 1965) has concluded that embezzlement loss should be allowed as deduction in…

Centrum Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4120/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Centrum Broking Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T., 4(1)(1) Centrum House, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Cst Road, Vidyanagari Marg, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098. Pan/Gir No.Aabca 1498 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the documents filed by

Section 143(3)

…d. Boots Piramal Health Care Ltd - 3213/Mum/2009 (now known as M/s Nicholas Piramal Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd). 7. It was argued by the ld. AR that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Limited vs CIT reported in 56 ITR 1(SC) has held that "the loss by embezzlement must be deemed to have occurred when the assessee came to know about the embezzlement and realized that the amount embezzled could not be recovered". In another decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 5 Centrum Broking Ltd. Vs DCIT of Badridas Daga V/s CIT reported in 34 ITR 10) (SC) has held that…

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax, Circle-2, Nashik vs. Smt. Chhaya Valmik Nikhade, Late Shri Valmik R. Nikhade, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1804/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 80I

…not required to be included to be part of accumulated profit. As such, as observed by the learned Tribunal, the issue is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Revenue in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1 by which, the view taken that the profit accrues when the books of account are closed. 5. Under the circumstances and considering the Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, we confirm the view taken by the learned Tribunal and held the question No.1 raised in the present appeal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently,…

Late Shri Walmik Raghunath Nikhade, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1743/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Ghei

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 80I

…not required to be included to be part of accumulated profit. As such, as observed by the learned Tribunal, the issue is already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Revenue in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1 by which, the view taken that the profit accrues when the books of account are closed. 5. Under the circumstances and considering the Explanation 2 to Section 2(22)(e) of the Act, we confirm the view taken by the learned Tribunal and held the question No.1 raised in the present appeal in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Consequently,…

Ranee Agency, Kolkata vs. ITO., WD - 55(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1379/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1379/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Utpal Ranjan Dutt, Partner(Ranee Agency)For Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156(3)Section 271(1)Section 28Section 29Section 37(1)

…65 after referring to its circulars no. 25 of 1939 and 13 of 1944 and the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bradidas Daga vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 and Associated Banking Corporation of Ranee Agency Assessment Year:2008-09 India Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1 clarified the legal position that the loss by embezzlement by employees should be treated as incidental to a business and this loss should be allowed as deduction the year in which it is discovered. In view of the above, the fact, that the amount of Rs. 11,60,036/-, which is debited in our accounts in cash defalcated by cashier-cum-manager, is allow…

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5524/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was discovered during the year under consideration, it was yet open to the Tribunal to ascertain whether there was any loss, in fact, incurred or not. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Associated Banking Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1, the Tribunal held that till the point of time reasonable prospects of recovery of the amount embezzled existed, it could not be stated that a trading loss in a commercial sense had been incurred. Further, referring to the suit which was filed by the assessee against the employee and the compromise which had been arrived at during the calendar year…

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5523/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was discovered during the year under consideration, it was yet open to the Tribunal to ascertain whether there was any loss, in fact, incurred or not. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Associated Banking Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1, the Tribunal held that till the point of time reasonable prospects of recovery of the amount embezzled existed, it could not be stated that a trading loss in a commercial sense had been incurred. Further, referring to the suit which was filed by the assessee against the employee and the compromise which had been arrived at during the calendar year…

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5522/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…was discovered during the year under consideration, it was yet open to the Tribunal to ascertain whether there was any loss, in fact, incurred or not. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Associated Banking Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 1, the Tribunal held that till the point of time reasonable prospects of recovery of the amount embezzled existed, it could not be stated that a trading loss in a commercial sense had been incurred. Further, referring to the suit which was filed by the assessee against the employee and the compromise which had been arrived at during the calendar year…

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

Anjappan Rangasamy, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

Metal Closures Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle 4(1)(2), Bangalore

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

Rudra Industries, Nizamabad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Nizamabad

JCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Daawat Foods Ltd., New Delhi

Dawat Foods Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Ramesh Premji Shah, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

DCIT Cir 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Karjat Golf Club P.Ltd, Mumbai

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mandava Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad

George Oakes Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Davanagere vs. M/S. Davangere District Central Co-Operative Bank Limited, Davanagere

Avijit Dewanjee, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

Centrum Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner Income-Tax, Circle-2, Nashik vs. Smt. Chhaya Valmik Nikhade, Late Shri Valmik R. Nikhade, Nashik

Late Shri Walmik Raghunath Nikhade, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

Ranee Agency, Kolkata vs. ITO., WD - 55(1), Kolkata

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai

Nibr Bullion P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 3, Mumbai