How many judgments cite Badridas Daga v. CIT?

181 judgments on BharatTax cite Badridas Daga v. CIT (34 ITR 10), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Badridas Daga v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 28, Section 115JB, Section 37(1), Section 234B, Section 250.

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 28 Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 234B Section 250 Section 37 Section 14A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(1)section 90a unexplained jewellery section 24(b)section 36(2)under-reporting of income withholding tax section 80c foreign tax credit commercial expediency royalty income disallowance of interest expenditure

Judgments citing Badridas Daga v. CIT

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Dcm Shriram Consolidated Ltd

ITA/1289/2010HC Delhi30 Jul 2012

Section 271(1)Section 28

…er Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. The assessee’s appeal to the Appellate Commissioner was unsuccessful. Therefore, it appealed to the ITAT. 3. Before the ITAT, the assessee relied upon the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Badridas Daga Vs. CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC); Calcutta 2012:DHC:4648-DB ITA 1289/2010 Page 3 Discount Company Vs. CIT, 37 ITR 1 (SC); and Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs. CIT 98 ITR 209 (SC). After considering the rival contentions, the ITAT allowed the assessee’s appeal. It reasoned that: “12. We have heard both sides and find ourselves in complete agreement with the contention of…