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 366,339 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

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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

…t by employees should be treated as an incidental to business 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 c…

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)

…raud, etc. is to be allowed as a business loss u/s 28 is no longer res integra. In support of the same, he relied upon the following decisions: Metal Closures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 4 of 16 a) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) b) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v Nainital Bank Ltd [1965] 55 ITR 707 (SC) c) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Sassoon J David & Co (P) Ltd v CIT [1 975] 98 ITR 50 (80M.) 3.5 For the above reasons, he submitted that the impugned additions made by the Ld. AO are liable to be deleted and do not stand the test of law. 4. T…

Sri Sravan Kumar Neela, Nalgonda vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 899/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

…ood law. Reference was also made to it’s earlier decisions, viz. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC); Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC); Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC); Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC). Further, the silver bars seized being not recorded in the assessee’s books, who could not furnish any explanation as to their source, income was held by the Hon’ble Court as rightly brought to tax u/s. 69A. The decision, it may be noted, accords with the settled law, explained in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. (supra), a larger bench decisio…

Sri Uma Maheshwara Rao Chinni, Guntur vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Kozhikode

In the result, the instant appeals by the assesses are dismissed

ITA 895/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasuma Maheshwara Rao Chinni Asst. Cit, Central Circle -1, Hno. 7-298, 7 Ward Aayakar Bhavan (North Block) Gandhi Bomma Centre Vs. Kozhikode 673001 Dachepalle, Guntur 522414 [Pan:Arjpc0342D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 132ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 69A

…ood law. Reference was also made to it’s earlier decisions, viz. Apex Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2022] 442 ITR 1 (SC); Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 (SC); Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 350 (SC); Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC). Further, the silver bars seized being not recorded in the assessee’s books, who could not furnish any explanation as to their source, income was held by the Hon’ble Court as rightly brought to tax u/s. 69A. The decision, it may be noted, accords with the settled law, explained in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. (supra), a larger bench decisio…

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

…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. 8. 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 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…

Finquest Securities Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 250Section 36(2)

…ssessee has himself made it clear that upto 31.03.2015 i.e in AY 2015-16 no such compensation had been made. So the question of allowing any loss in AY 2015-16 does not arise. 7.5 The case laws relied upon by the appellant, namely, Badridas Daga vs. CIT[1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) and Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 700 (Bom) also cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as here the fraud has been committed by the employee in respect of the client/customer by embezzling shares from the client's D-mat account. The loss to the assessee will only arise when it actually compensates such client. It is…

ACIT Non Corporate Circle 20(1), Chennai vs. V.Krishnamurthy, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2558/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2558/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Shri. V. Krishnamurthy, Income Tax, V. No. 66, Eldams Road, Non Corporate Circle -20(1), Teynampet, Chennai. Chennai – 600 018. [Pan: Aacpk-6064-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate

…nnot be classified as a business transaction and the outstanding is not an amount paid by the assessee in the normal course of his business. In this regard, the observation of the Supreme Court in Badridas Daga vs Commissioner of Income-tax (1958) reported in 34 ITR 10 (SC) reproduced below attains significance. "a business debt springs directly from the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it and not any loss sustained by the assessee, even if it has some connection with his business " As per the balance sheet of M/s. Samjass IT Services India Ltd, the reserves & surplus as on 31/03/2007, was a defic…

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

…being in the nature of loss incidental to the business of the assessee 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.…

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

…being in the nature of loss incidental to the business of the assessee 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.…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 Kolkata vs. Balmer Lawrie and Co Ltd

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed on the ground

ITAT/259/2022HC Calcutta13 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE T.S. SIVAGNANAM, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…s deduction in arriving at taxable income of the relevant year. The tribunal notes that such contention raised by the revenue was negated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rotork Controla 5 (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ITAT NO. 259 OF 2022 REPORTABLE Page 14 of 18 India Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Income Tax 6 and allowed claim for provisions for warrantees by observing that the provision is all…

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)

…arly, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the advances written off of Rs.28,21,75,835/- by holding that the loss 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.…

DCIT Cir 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Money Mart Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and Cross Objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4256/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)

…t carried out by employees of assessee or employees of ABML. This matter requires factual verification which would decide the issue in dispute before us. The reliance placed on the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Badridas Daga vs CIT reported in 34 ITR 10 (SC) would certainly come to the rescue of the assessee, if the employee of the assessee had embezzled . On the contrary, if the employee of ABML had done some mischief, then the said loss though borne by the assessee on behalf of the clients should have to be recovered from ABML by the assessee. Hence the allowability of loss could be decided on t…