Badridas Daga v. CIT

34 ITR 10Supreme Court of India1958#527 most cited

What is Badridas Daga v. CIT authority for?

A loss incurred by a businessman, such as money lost or advances written off, if it arises in the ordinary course of business, is a deductible trading loss. Such a loss is allowable as it is inherent or incidental to the business operations.

181

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Badridas Daga v. CIT · 34 ITR 10 · business loss · deductible loss · trading loss · advances written off · money lost in ordinary course · Section 28 · Section 37(1) · allowable business expenditure

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 115JBSection 37(1)Section 234BSection 250Section 37Section 14A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(1)section 90aunexplained jewellerysection 24(b)section 36(2)under-reporting of incomewithholding taxsection 80cforeign tax creditcommercial expediencyroyalty incomedisallowance of interest expenditure

Judgments citing Badridas Daga v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Deepak Mohanlal Purswani, Rajkot

ITA 665/RJT/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.630 & 631/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2021-2022 & 2022-23) Hybrid Hearing Shree Deepak Mohanlal Puruswani बनाम The Dcit, Cc-1 Rajkot Nr. Maa Krupa, 4- Saurashtra Kala Vs. Aaykar Bhawan "Amruta Estate", Kendra Society, Opp. Nirmala Convent, Mg Road, Rajkot 360001, Kalawad Road, Rajkot-360001 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Ajvpp5139P (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं/. Ita No.665/Rjt/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2022-23) The Dcit, Cc-1 Rajkot बनाम Shree Deepak Mohanlal Puruswani Aaykar Bhawan“Amruta Estate", 2Nd Vs. Nr. Maa Krupa, 4- Saurashtra Kala Floor Mg Road Kendra Society, Opp. Nirmala Rajkot 360001, Gujrat Convent, Kalawad Road, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) स्थायीलेखासं/. जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Ajvpp5139P Rajkot-360001 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारितीकीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar राजस्वकीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/01/2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/03/2026 आदेश/Order Per, Bench: Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue, Pertaining To

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

…to have resulted at all, there is obviously neither accrual nor receipt of income, even though an entry to that effect might, in certain circumstances, have been made in the books of account." 1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BadridasDaga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) had allowed 'loss on embezzlement', though not an expenditure, as a deduction on the principle of real income theory. This theory is propounded more particularfy when there Page 16 of 35 ITA Nos.630 & 631 and 665/Rjt/2024 Deepak Mohanlal Puruswani is no assistance in the form of law, so that tax was levied on real income and not on hypothetica…

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Special Range-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

…and competitive pricing pressures, and not because of any intention to shift profits or avoid tax. 8.4 In law also, under section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in CIT v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee’s loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited und…

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Special Rang-3, Bangalore

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 543/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

…nd competitive pricing pressures, and not because of any intention to shift profits or avoid tax. 8.4 In law also, under section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in C77 v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee’s loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited und…

DCIT CC -1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 531/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

…nd competitive pricing pressures, and not because of any intention to shift profits or avoid tax. 8.4 In law also, under section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in C77 v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee’s loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited und…

DCIT, CC-1(4), Bengaluru vs. Instakart Services Pvt Ltd, Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 530/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

…nd competitive pricing pressures, and not because of any intention to shift profits or avoid tax. 8.4 In law also, under section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in C77 v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee’s loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited und…

Instakart Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 496/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Voh

…nd competitive pricing pressures, and not because of any intention to shift profits or avoid tax. 8.4 In law also, under section 28 of the Act, a loss incidental to carrying on business is deductible. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 has held that a real and actual business loss is allowable. Similarly, in C77 v. Indian Overseas Bank (1985) 151 ITR 446, it was held that a loss must be allowed if it has actually arisen and is not merely anticipated. The assessee’s loss fully satisfies these principles, as it is real, revenue in nature, incidental to trade, and not prohibited und…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…the following decisions wherein it has been held that when an amount is held to be not deductible in view of non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT (Int. Taxa-1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…the following decisions wherein it has been held that when an amount is held to be not deductible in view of non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the…

Joshi Technologies International Inc India Projects, Ahmedabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle(Int.Taxn.)-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…the following decisions wherein it has been held that when an amount is held to be not deductible in view of non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(2), Delhi, I.P.Estate vs. Bureau Veritas Consumer Products Services (India) Private Limited, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3294/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

…ss and is thus allowable. Therefore, keeping in view on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. 46 ITR 649 and the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay Court in the case of Harsad J Choksi 25 taxmann.com 567 and Badri Das Daga 34 ITR 10, we are of the considered view that the said amount written off is nothing but a business loss and is thus allowable. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) as far as the disallowance of advances of Rs.41,18,161/- written off is concerned. Hence, we decline to interfere with the impugned finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Thus…

The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat Apollo Industries Limited, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 407/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalthe Assistant Commissioner Gujarat Apollo Industries Ltd., Vs. Of Income Tax, Block No.486,487, 488, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Mehsana Highway, Ahmedabad. Opp. Water Park, Dholasan, Mehsana-382732. [Pan :Aaacg7248 P] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bp Srivastava, Sr. Dr Respondent By: Shri Mehul K Patel, Ar Date Of Hearing 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri BP Srivastava, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mehul K Patel, AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 36Section 37(1)

…o doubt whatsoever that unless the deduction, which the assessee has claimed, can be treated as a loss, which is connected with his business and incidental to it, it will not be claimable as a revenue loss. As has been observed in Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) : TC14R.202 the loss for which a deduction is claimed must be one that springs directly from the carrying on of the business and not any loss sustained by the assessee even if it has some connection with business. In that case the loss in question was Caused by the embezzlement by an agent of the assessee. It was held that the loss sustained b…

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)

…ew has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court once again in the case of Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT reported in 111 ITR 263(SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has following its earlier decision in the case of Badridas Daga vs. Commissioner of Income-tax 34 ITR 10(SC) held as follows; "A businessman has to keep moneys either when he gets it as sale proceeds of the stock-in-trade or for disbursement to meet the business expense or for purchasing stock-in-trade and if he loses such money in the ordinary course of business, the toss is a deductible trading loss, It is Immaterial whether the money is a part of t…

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

…for the purpose of the business in the place from which it was lost. Since 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 car…

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)

…mplaint against the tax auditor and produced the copies of FIR and the CID report before the learned CIT(A). But, the authorities below refused to grant any relief under section 37(1) of the Act. 11. On this aspect, in the case of Badridas Daga vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10, the Hon'ble Apex Court 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 Act, if it arises out of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. In the case of Associated Banking Corporation…

ACIT Circle 10(1), New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

ITA 1108/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…me had never been offered as income in preceding years and the nature of advances were capital. However, the same, placing reliance on the case laws; Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 46 ITR 649 (SC), Harsad J Choksi 25 taxmann.com567 (Bom) and Badri Das Daga 34 ITR 10, was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) treating the same as business loss. 21. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on record. The CIT-DR has not brought any material on the record to contradict the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the advances have been given in the normal course of business, which became unrecoverabl…

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Ircon International Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed as above

ITA 1104/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115JSection 14ASection 80I

…me had never been offered as income in preceding years and the nature of advances were capital. However, the same, placing reliance on the case laws; Mysore Sugar Co. Ltd. reported in 46 ITR 649 (SC), Harsad J Choksi 25 taxmann.com567 (Bom) and Badri Das Daga 34 ITR 10, was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) treating the same as business loss. 21. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on record. The CIT-DR has not brought any material on the record to contradict the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the advances have been given in the normal course of business, which became unrecoverabl…

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)

…nal Housing Bank 5.1 The Ld. AR submitted that even the AO had held the said loss of Rs.150.45 Crores claimed during the year 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 m…

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)

…nal Housing Bank 5.1 The Ld. AR submitted that even the AO had held the said loss of Rs.150.45 Crores claimed during the year 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…

Mahakoshal Refreactories Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 930/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. Kantilal Gugalia, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…omputing profits of the business under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922," 8 Mahakoshal Refractories Pvt. Ltd. AY 2017-18 6.3. Hon'ble Court also made a useful reference to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC), wherein it was held that, for assessing the amount of profits and gains liable to tax, one must necessarily have regard to the accepted commercial practice that deduction of such expenses and losses is to be allowed if it arises in carrying on business and is incidental to it. There is no bar in claiming a loss, if the same is incidental to c…

Puja Entertainment (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3285/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)(i)Section 37(1)

…lowable as a deduction as a revenue loss in computing profits of the business under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922," 7.4.4. Hon'ble Court also made a useful reference to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC)wherein it was held that, for assessing the amount of profits and gains liable to tax, one must necessarily have regard to the accepted commercial practice that deduction of such expenses and losses is to be allowed if it arises in carrying on business and is incidental to it. There is no bar in claiming a loss, if the same is incidental to car…