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)

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., Anand vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, appeal of the assessee ispartly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 905/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Smt. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2012-13 Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Anand Circle Anandsojitra Road Anand. Vallabhvidyanagar 388 120 Pan : Aaace4644D 0 अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shria.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/07/2022

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: ShriA.P. Singh, CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

…ns advanced in the course of or incidental to the business of the assessee are allowable when they become irrecoverable. The Hon’ble apex court laid down the principles relating to allowance of business losses in its decision in the case of BadridasDagaVs CIT 34 ITR 10(SC) . Dealing with the issue in the context of the Income Tax Act,1922, in the backdrop of allowability of claim of loss by an assessee in money lending business, on account of embezzlement of money by employees,theHon,ble court held that for allowability of business losses it should spring directly from the carrying on of businesss.The relevant po…

Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 637/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…dinary case of principal and agent. Wherever an agent is liable, those directors would be liable; where the liability would attach to the principal, and the principal only, the liability is the liability of the company." d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT held that "When once it was established that 'C' was in charge of the business, that he had authority to operate on the bank accounts, and that he withdrew the moneys in the purported exercise of that authority, his action was referable to his character as agent, and any loss resulting from misappropriation of funds by hi…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 484/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Nekkanti Systems Private Vs. Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward – 16(2), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aaccn1440J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vs. Nekkanti Systems Private Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle – 16(1), Pan : Aaccn1440J. Hyderabad. Assessee By: Sri S. Rama Rao. Revenue By: Sri Rajendra Kumar – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2022 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M. These Are The Two Connected Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue For A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Orders Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Hyderabad Dt.29.03.2019 U/S 263 Of The Act & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad Dt.23.01.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar – CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…dinary case of principal and agent. Wherever an agent is liable, those directors would be liable; where the liability would attach to the principal, and the principal only, the liability is the liability of the company." d) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT held that "When once it was established that 'C' was in charge of the business, that he had authority to operate on the bank accounts, and that he withdrew the moneys in the purported exercise of that authority, his action was referable to his character as agent, and any loss resulting from misappropriation of funds by hi…

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)

…for the relevant assessment year 2008-09. The ld.counsel I.T.A. No.1017/Chny/2017 6 for the assessee relied on the same Circular which was relied on by the CIT(A) and also relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga vs. CIT, 34 ITR 10, Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court decision in the case of J and K Bank Ltd., order dated 29.08.2017 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Associating Banking Corporation of India Ltd., vs. CIT, 56 ITR 1. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR relied on the assessment order and the order of CIT(A) and stated that the facts are undisputed and t…

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

…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 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 car…

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…s “business ITA Nos.926 & 1118/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 11 of 13 loss” under Section 28 or 37 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions:- - CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd)…

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…s “business ITA Nos.926 & 1118/Ahd/2012 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 11 of 13 loss” under Section 28 or 37 of the Act. The Ld. A.R. relied upon the following decisions:- - CIT vs. Abdul Razak & Co. (1982) 136 ITR 825 (Guj) - Badridas Daga vs. CIT – (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) - CIT vs. Nainital Bank Limited – (1965) 55 ITR 707 (SC) - ITO vs. M.V. Mathew – (1994) 72 Taxman 89 (Cochin) (Mag) - Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd)…

Pranava Electronics P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 415/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate and Ms. Girija, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 14Section 14ASection 234BSection 37(1)

…mercial practice and trading principles. We, therefore, hold that the High Court went wrong in holding that the said amount represented loss incurred by the appellant de hors its business.’’ (5) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga vs CIT in 34 ITR 10 has held as reproduced as hereunder: ‘’4………It is to be noted that while s. 10(1) imposes a charge on the profits or gains of a trade, it does not provide how those profits are to be computed. Sec. 10(2) enumerates various items which are admissible as deductions, but it is well settled that they are not exhaustive of all allowances which could be m…

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2701/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 : Asst.Year 2013-2014 M/S.United Spirits Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of Ub Towers, Income-Tax, Circle 7(1)(1) V. No.24 Vittal Mallya Road Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 001. Pan : Aaccm8043J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate Respondent By : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 Date Of Hearing : 24.03.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 12.10.2017 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-2014. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Manufacture & Sale Of Alcoholic Beverage. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 On 28.11.2013 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment. During The Course Of Assessment, The Assessee’S Case Was Also Referred To The Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo). The Tpo Vide Order Dated 26.10.2016, Recommended Transfer Pricing Adjustments. The A.O., Thereafter, Passed A Draft Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2016. 2 It(Tp)A No.2701/Bang/2017 M/S.United Spirits Limited.

For Appellant: Sri.Percy Pardiwala, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 234CSection 36(1)(iii)

…and surmises. In this context, it was submitted that the assessee being a victim of such fraud would in fact be eligible to claim such sums a deductible bonafide business loss as highlighted in the following judicial pronouncements:- (i) Baridas Daga v. CIT (34 ITR 10 (SC) (ii) Sassoon J David & Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Bom.) (iii) CIT v. Parmanand Makhan Lal (1983) 15 Taxman 12 (Patna) (iv) Kothari & Sons v. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 23 (Madras) (v) Ramchandar Shivnarayan v. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) (vi) Khaitan & Co. v. CIT (1979) 1 Taxman 280 (Calcutta) (vii) Churakulam Tea Estates (P) Ltd. v. CIT (199…

Hba Studio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4015/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Hba Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, L-41, Connaught Circus, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan – Aabch8171R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 37(1)

…m 79 (Delhi) , (iii) Minda (HUF) Ltd. v. JCIT [2006] 101 ITD 191 (Delhi Trib.), (iv) ACIT vs. Set India (P) Ltd. [2010] 3 ITR (Trib.) 454 (MUM), (v) Vijayashanthi Builders Ltd. vs. JCIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 31 (Chennai-Trib.), (vi) Badridas Daga v. CIT[1058] 34 ITR 10 (SC) (vii) DCIT v. Friends Shoe Company [2016] 74 taxmann.com 100(Visakhapatnam- Trib.), (viii) Chenab Forest Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J.& K.HC), (ix) Jethabhai Hirji and Jethabhai Ramdas vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 792 (BOM.HC) (x) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 700 (Bom.HC) to contend that advances lost towar…

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1091/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandraita No. 1091/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Acit, Vs M/S Benetton India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-4(2), B-25, Infocity, Sector-43, New Delhi-110002 Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd1013F Assessee By : Sh. Atul Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. M. K. Das, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. M. K. Das, Sr. DR

…l expenditure, but it being a plain case of business loss, it would certainly be allowable to be deducted under the provisions of Section 37 of the Act.” 13. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of BadridasDaga vs. CIT (34 ITR 10) Calcutta Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (37 ITR 1) wherein it was held that “the profit to be assessed are the real profits and they must be ascertained on ordinary principles of commercial training and commercial accounting. The profit should be computed after deducting losses and expenditure incurred for the purposes of business unless such losses or expendit…

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)

…ut of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it, the same have to be allowed as a deduction even though there is no specific provision for allowance thereof. Page 7 of 14 12. In the context of embezzlement losses, in Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) where sums withdrawn by an employee from a bank account were misappropriated, the Supreme Court summed up the legal position on allowability of loss on account of embezzlement in the following words: "... A business especially such as is calculated to yield taxable profits has to be carried on through agents, cashiers, clerks and peons. ... I…

Velankani Information Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N V Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sankarganesh, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 30Section 37Section 37(1)

…covery of rent deposit was not in the nature of revenue loss allowable as a deduction and hence Page 4 of 10 writing off the same on account of non-recovery would be a capital loss not allowable as a deduction. 8. Further in the case of Badridas Daga v. CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC), the Supreme Court held that, “The result is that when a claim is made for a deduction for which there is no specific provision in section 10(2), whether it is admissible or not will depend on whether, having regard to accepted commercial practice and trading principles, it can be said to arise out of the carrying on of the business and to be…

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 543/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…1035 of the paperbook). Reliance was also placed by the Assessee on the following decisions in support of its claim that the loss incurred due to misappropriation of its funds by its ex-employee ought to be allowed as a deduction: Badridas Daga v. C/T (1958) 34 ITR 10  Kothari & Sons v. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 23  Gothamchand Galada v. C/T (1961) 42 ITR 418.  Without prejudice to the above, if the disallowance of the aforesaid loss incurred due to misappropriation of its funds by its ex-employee were to be upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal, then it is submitted that since the loss related to its Unit which is eligibl…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 341/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

…1035 of the paperbook). Reliance was also placed by the Assessee on the following decisions in support of its claim that the loss incurred due to misappropriation of its funds by its ex-employee ought to be allowed as a deduction: Badridas Daga v. C/T (1958) 34 ITR 10  Kothari & Sons v. CIT (1966) 61 ITR 23  Gothamchand Galada v. C/T (1961) 42 ITR 418.  Without prejudice to the above, if the disallowance of the aforesaid loss incurred due to misappropriation of its funds by its ex-employee were to be upheld by this Hon'ble Tribunal, then it is submitted that since the loss related to its Unit which is eligibl…

Bcl Securities Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1615/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.DR

Section 14ASection 28Section 36Section 37

…the appellant due to fraudulent act towards breach of commitment was incidental to operation of the business and allowable as business expenditure. This has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtof India in the case of Badridas Daga vs. CIT reported in (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)by holding as under- “Loss resulting from embezzlement by an employee or agent in a business is, however, admissible as a deduction under section 10(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, if it arises out of the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. It makes no difference in the admissibility of the deduction whether I.T.A. No.1615/DE…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 63. At the time of hearing both the parties fairly agreed that the order of CIT (A) does not need any inference. We also find support on this issue from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v/s CIT 34 ITR 10, wherein it has been held that amounts advanced in the ordinary course of business which become irrecoverable are allowable as business losses. The order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, on this issue is upheld and this ground of appeal of the department is dismissed. 64. Ground No. 4: This ground raised by the department pertains to the loss on account…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 63. At the time of hearing both the parties fairly agreed that the order of CIT (A) does not need any inference. We also find support on this issue from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v/s CIT 34 ITR 10, wherein it has been held that amounts advanced in the ordinary course of business which become irrecoverable are allowable as business losses. The order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, on this issue is upheld and this ground of appeal of the department is dismissed. 64. Ground No. 4: This ground raised by the department pertains to the loss on account…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5776/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 63. At the time of hearing both the parties fairly agreed that the order of CIT (A) does not need any inference. We also find support on this issue from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v/s CIT 34 ITR 10, wherein it has been held that amounts advanced in the ordinary course of business which become irrecoverable are allowable as business losses. The order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, on this issue is upheld and this ground of appeal of the department is dismissed. 64. Ground No. 4: This ground raised by the department pertains to the loss on account…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1349/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. 63. At the time of hearing both the parties fairly agreed that the order of CIT (A) does not need any inference. We also find support on this issue from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v/s CIT 34 ITR 10, wherein it has been held that amounts advanced in the ordinary course of business which become irrecoverable are allowable as business losses. The order of Ld. CIT(A), therefore, on this issue is upheld and this ground of appeal of the department is dismissed. 64. Ground No. 4: This ground raised by the department pertains to the loss on account…

Badridas Daga v. CIT

What is Badridas Daga v. CIT authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Badridas Daga v. CIT

Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd., Anand vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

Nekkanti Systems Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2), Hyderabad

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad vs. Nekkanti Systems 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

Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad

The ACIT, (OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad vs. Corrtech International Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

Pranava Electronics P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangalore

M/S. United Spirits Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

Hba Studio Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi vs. Benetton India P.Ltd, Gurgaon

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

Velankani Information Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

San Disk India Device Design Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Sandisk India Device Design Centre Private Limited, Bangalore

Bcl Securities Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle-4(1), New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi