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.

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 10)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore, Bmtc Building, Koramangala, Baqngalore vs. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, Bescom Corporate Office

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 710/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…lakhs are amounts of materials advance to employees/ suppliers during the course of business activities of the assessee. Therefore the same is a business loss to the assessee and is allowable in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 34 ITR 10, the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of 349 ITR 240 and honourable Madras High court in 415 ITR 146. Assessee also relied upon the several judicial precedents in his case law compilations. 46. The learned departmental representative referred to the paragraph number 10.8 (c ) of the order of the learned CIT – A and submitted th…

M/S. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd., Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 426/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

…lakhs are amounts of materials advance to employees/ suppliers during the course of business activities of the assessee. Therefore the same is a business loss to the assessee and is allowable in view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in case of 34 ITR 10, the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court in case of 349 ITR 240 and honourable Madras High court in 415 ITR 146. Assessee also relied upon the several judicial precedents in his case law compilations. 46. The learned departmental representative referred to the paragraph number 10.8 (c ) of the order of the learned CIT – A and submitted th…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

…ts only since the assesses had maintained its expenditure account on mercantile basis and hence the recovery made by the Government of India was liable to be deducted as professional expenditure. The reliance was placed on the decision of Badridas Daga vs.CIT 34 ITR 10(SC), wherein it was held that "loss resulting from ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 15– embezzlement are admissible as deduction u/s 10(1) of the I.T. Act (corresponding to sec.23 of I.T. Act, 1961) if it arises out of carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. It was furthe…

Shri Mukesh Rasiklal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-9, Now Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153Section 250

…ts only since the assesses had maintained its expenditure account on mercantile basis and hence the recovery made by the Government of India was liable to be deducted as professional expenditure. The reliance was placed on the decision of Badridas Daga vs.CIT 34 ITR 10(SC), wherein it was held that "loss resulting from ITA Nos. 3217 & 3218/Ahd/2015 Shri Mukesh Rasklal Shah Vs. ACIT Asst. Year :1992-93 & 1993-94 - 15– embezzlement are admissible as deduction u/s 10(1) of the I.T. Act (corresponding to sec.23 of I.T. Act, 1961) if it arises out of carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. It was furthe…

Patel Engineering Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, except for one ground no

ITA 2801/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 194ASection 201

…which is a capital asset in the hands of the purchaser, would have to be treated as capital receipt in the hands of the seller also. 96. We find that here in this case the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga Vs. CIT (34 ITR 10) has emphatically laid down the principle that losses suffered are incidental to carrying out of business and which are springing from business activities are allowable as a deduction under section 28 of the Act itself. The deductions are not exhaustive and profits are to be determined on the basis of ordinary commercial principles The aforesaid pr…

The Dy CIT CC-38, Mumbai vs. M/S. United Phosphourous Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…) subsequent recovery of the amount which has been written off as irrecoverable under section 41(1). 14.8. The aforesaid issue in respect of tender deposit written off is covered by the following decisions in favour of the appellant (a) Badridas Daga vs. CIT (34 ITR 10) (SC) (b) Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Limited (ITA No. 6159/Mum/2003) (c) Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT (27 ITR 700) (Bombay) 14.9. Further, it is submitted that amount written off as irrecoverable is allowable as deduction in the year of it being debited to Profit and Loss Account. It is well settled position that it is not necessary for the…

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

…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…

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

…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…

Siddhayu Aaurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ACIT/ITO/NFAC/// the ACIT Circle 34(3) (2), Delhi

In the result this appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA 745/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalsiddhayu Aayurvedic Research Foundation Pvt. Ltd., C/704, Pramukh Plaza, Cardinal Gracious Road, Chakala, Andheri East, Mumbai-400 069. Pan No. Aaacs8335F ..... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 4(3) (2) Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K. C. Selvamani, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 234BSection 270ASection 271ASection 28Section 37(1)

…on" under section 28 of the Act as long as it is a trading loss and the same is arising directly from the carrying on of the business and incidental to it and in this regard, relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga [1958] 34 ITR 10 and Ramchandar Shivnarayan [1977] 111 ITR 263 wherein it is held that If there is a direct and proximate nexus between the business operation and the loss or it is incidental to it, then the loss is deductible, as without the business operation and doing all that is incidental to it, no profit can be earned. 6.2.10the assessee has also drawn our at…

Loramitra Rath, Kairapari Kotsahi, Tangi vs. DCIT (Circle-1(1), Cuttack

The appeal is allowed

ITA 314/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack05 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Loramitra Loramitra Rath, Rath, Kairapari Kairapari Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Kotsahi, Tangi, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. No.Aebpr 6065 H (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Purnendhu Bhusan Mohanty, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr

Section 48

…ASES Sl Name of the Cases and case Citation Page no NO 1 ACIT Vs Emaar MGF Construction Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 20 928/Del/2016 (ITAT Delhi) 2 Add’l CIT vs Glad Investments (P.) Ltd (2006) 102 ITD 227 18 (ITAT Delhi) 3 Badridas Daga vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 34 ITR 10 1 (SC) 4 CIT v. Attilli N. Rao 252 ITR 880 (SC) 26 5 CIT v. Bagyalakshmi and Co. [1965] 55 I'TR 660 (SC) 24 6 CIT v. Patuck (1969) 71 [TR 713 (Bom) 10 7 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) 5 8 CIT v. Sitaldas Tirathdas (1961) 41 ITR 367 (SC) CIT vs. 5 Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144 (SC) 9 CIT vs. A. Gajapathy Naidu 53 ITR 114(SC)…