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

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3319/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (Supra) and also the deci…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3318/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (Supra) and also the deci…

M/S Gogga Gurusanthaiah and Brothers, Hospet vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3317/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.Sivaprasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 37

…CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (Supra) and also the deci…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 315/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…y virtue of provisions of the expression ‘profits & gains’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss is to be considered while ascertaining real profits in a commercial sense. Reliance was placed on Badaridas Daga v. ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 70 CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 57 ITR 521, Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 31. Therefore, it is submitted that, in the instant case, the amount of compensation and compulsory contribution is to be deducted as a business loss while computing profits and gains under Section 28 of the IT Act. The compensation and compulsory contrib…

Sri. B. Rudragouda, Bellary vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 314/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37Section 37(1)

…y virtue of provisions of the expression ‘profits & gains’ u/s. 28 of the Act, a business loss is to be considered while ascertaining real profits in a commercial sense. Reliance was placed on Badaridas Daga v. ITA Nos.314 & 315/Bang/2020 Page 24 of 70 CIT, 34 ITR 10 (SC), Poona Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT, 57 ITR 521, Dr. T.A. Qureshi v. CIT, 287 ITR 547. 31. Therefore, it is submitted that, in the instant case, the amount of compensation and compulsory contribution is to be deducted as a business loss while computing profits and gains under Section 28 of the IT Act. The compensation and compulsory contrib…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4664/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Co No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Co No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op Circle-11(2), Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR
Section 28

…/2017 18 CO Nos. 190 & 191/Del/2017 Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. • There should be no prohibition in the Act, express or implied, against the deductibility thereof. 19. In Pondicherry Railway Co Ltd Vs CIT [1931] 5 ITC 363 (PC)/ Badridas Daga Vs CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC)/ Calcutta Co Ltd Vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC)/ CIT Vs Bai Shirinbai K Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC)/ Kamalpat Motilal Vs CIT [1976] 104 ITR 783 (SC) it was held that subject to the special requirements of the Act, the profit to be assessed are the real profits and they must be ascertained on the ordinary principles of commercial trading and comme…

ACIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4663/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 4663/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4664/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Acit, Vs M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Circle-11(2), Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op New Delhi Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Co No. 190/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Co No. 191/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 M/S Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Mehtab House, A-36, Mohan Co-Op Circle-11(2), Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach7474G Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Vanita R. Sharma, CIT DR
Section 28

…/2017 18 CO Nos. 190 & 191/Del/2017 Humboldt Wedag India Pvt. Ltd. • There should be no prohibition in the Act, express or implied, against the deductibility thereof. 19. In Pondicherry Railway Co Ltd Vs CIT [1931] 5 ITC 363 (PC)/ Badridas Daga Vs CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC)/ Calcutta Co Ltd Vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC)/ CIT Vs Bai Shirinbai K Kooka [1962] 46 ITR 86 (SC)/ Kamalpat Motilal Vs CIT [1976] 104 ITR 783 (SC) it was held that subject to the special requirements of the Act, the profit to be assessed are the real profits and they must be ascertained on the ordinary principles of commercial trading and comme…

M/S Divya Sree Holding P. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 693/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year :2011-12 M/S. Divyasree Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Vs. 1. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Divyasree Chambers, Central, Bengaluru. ‘O’ Shaugnessy Road, 2. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 025. Central Circle – 2[3], Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacd 6970 H : Assesseee By Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 12.1.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.1.2021 O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36(2)Section 40Section 44A

…O denied the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of Bad Debt. The Tribunal confirmed the action of the AO. On further appeal, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) held that the deduction if not allowable as Bad Debt should be allowed as a business loss as the loss was incidental to carrying out of business of the assessee. 5. The CIT, however, held that the sum of Rs.2,24,000/- was admitted by the assessee in the tax audit report under section 44AB of the Act, as a sum on which TDS has not been and the…

M/S. Veerabhadrappa Sangappa & Company, Sandur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1, Bellary

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

…CIT vs. Piara Singh (1980)(124 ITR 40)(SC) (e) CIT vs. T.C. Reddy (2013)(356 ITR 516)(AP) (f) RamachandarShivnarayan vs. CIT (1978)(111 ITR 263)(SC) (g) Bipinchand K Bhatia vs. DCIT (Tax appeal No.107 of 2004 dated 16.10.2014) (h) BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958)(34 ITR 10)(SC) (i) Poona Electric Supply Co Ltd vs. CIT (1965)(57 ITR 521)(SC) 7.7.1. Ld.Counsel, thus, submitted that the amount deducted by MC may also be taken as business loss and hence the same is deductible u/s.28 of the Act. Ld.Counsel placed reliance on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.T.A.Quereshi vs. CIT (Supra) and also the deci…

Pranava Electronics Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/147/2016HC Karnataka07 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 37(1)

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD I.T.A. NO.147 OF 2016 BETWEEN: PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD FLAT NO.101, 1ST FLOOR, EDEN PARK NO.20, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI.K.R.PRADEEP, ADV.,) AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-12(2) BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADV.) - - - THIS ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 11.09.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.415/BAN…

M/S. Lucky Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…What has to brought to tax is the net amount earned by carrying on a profession or a business which necessarily requires deducting expenses and losses incurred in carrying on business or profession. The Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 has held that in 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. [Para 10] •On the basis of the aforesaid decision, it can be concluded that even if…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune vs. Sopan Gahunaji Lanke, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1556/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Vaishnavi BadweFor Respondent: Shri Houshang Boman Irani
Section 143(3)

…ce the appellant was deceived. This resulted in the reduction in the market value of the land to 50% and hence the amount was written off. To buttress his claim, the appellant relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Badridas Daga Vs CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) and requested to allow the claim of advance written off as genuine business expenditure. The AO after examining the submissions made inferred from the explanation received that the genuineness of the transaction was not proved since the appellant had failed to prove that this transaction was the regular business transaction of the appellant.…

M/S Popular Finance Company, Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…urrency notes had been stolen or dropped on the way while carrying on the business. It is a loss which springs directly from the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 the deduction must be allowed.” 5. In CIT v. SC. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794. this Court held that for the purpose of section 10(1) of the Act, a loss incurred in carrying on an illegal business must be deducted before the true figure of profits brought to tax can be computed. Grover, J., speaking for the Court, observed: "If a business is illegal,…

M/S.Popular Finance, Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 203/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…urrency notes had been stolen or dropped on the way while carrying on the business. It is a loss which springs directly from the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 the deduction must be allowed.” 5. In CIT v. SC. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794. this Court held that for the purpose of section 10(1) of the Act, a loss incurred in carrying on an illegal business must be deducted before the true figure of profits brought to tax can be computed. Grover, J., speaking for the Court, observed: "If a business is illegal,…

M/S Popular Finance Company, Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 202/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…urrency notes had been stolen or dropped on the way while carrying on the business. It is a loss which springs directly from the carrying on of the business and is incidental to it. Applying the principle laid down by this Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 the deduction must be allowed.” 5. In CIT v. SC. Kothari (1971) 82 ITR 794. this Court held that for the purpose of section 10(1) of the Act, a loss incurred in carrying on an illegal business must be deducted before the true figure of profits brought to tax can be computed. Grover, J., speaking for the Court, observed: "If a business is illegal,…

ACIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shcil Services Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 279/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…im from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. For arriving the above findings, the Bombay High Court relied on its earlier findings in case of R.B. Rungta & Co. (50 ITR 233) Badrids Daga v.CIT (34 ITR 10) (SC) Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section l0(2)(xi) of the Indian Income-Tax Act. 1922] - Bad debts - Assessee was earning on business in money lending -Assessee's agen ‘C’ having power of attorney to operate its bank account, withdrew a huge amount and misappropriated it - Said amount was written off by Assess…

Shcil Service Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by assessee is dismissed

ITA 206/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negiacit-4(2)(1) Vs. M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Room No.642, 6Th Floor 12/14 Uti Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road Bank Street, Cross Line Mumbai-400 020 Near Old Custom House Fort, Mumbai-400 023 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) & M/S Shcil Services Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(2)(1) C/O Kalyaniwalla&Mistry Llp Room No.669, 6Th Floor Army & Navy Building Aaykar Bhawan, M.K.Road 3Rd Floor, 148, M.G.Road Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs5661H Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Nitesh Joshi Revenue By T.Kipgen

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194H

…im from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. For arriving the above findings, the Bombay High Court relied on its earlier findings in case of R.B. Rungta & Co. (50 ITR 233) Badrids Daga v.CIT (34 ITR 10) (SC) Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section l0(2)(xi) of the Indian Income-Tax Act. 1922] - Bad debts - Assessee was earning on business in money lending -Assessee's agen ‘C’ having power of attorney to operate its bank account, withdrew a huge amount and misappropriated it - Said amount was written off by Assess…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH : Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 2335/Hyd./2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mylan Laboratories Limited. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad. PAN: AADCM3491M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 12/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited. 2nd Floor, B Block, Plot No.564/A/22, Road no.92 I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Jubilee Hills Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 034. Hyderabad & (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R. For…

Mylan Laboratories Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16(2), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2335/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Respondent: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R
Section 251Section 28Section 32Section 32(1)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD ‘A’ BENCH : Hyderabad Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member ITA No. 2335/Hyd./2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mylan Laboratories Limited. Vs. Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad. PAN: AADCM3491M (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 12/Hyd./2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dy.CIT, Circle 16(2) vs. Mylan Laboratories Limited. 2nd Floor, B Block, Plot No.564/A/22, Road no.92 I.T.Towers, A.C.Guards, Jubilee Hills Masab Tank Hyderabad 500 034. Hyderabad & (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Sh. YVST Sai, D.R. For…

ACIT, Circle - 5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 98/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

…e Remand Report dated 7th March, 2017, while the AO continues to abide by the views of the erstwhile AO. Thus following the ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Vijaya Bank v Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 323 ITR 166 (SC), and BadridasDaga v CIT, (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC), I direct deletion of the disallowance of Rs. 11,82,37,000/- made by the AO both in the normal computation and in the computation of Book Profit.” 12. Heard both the parties. From the facts and material on record we find that the assessee, a public sector undertaking, is engaged in the business of manufacturing / production of containers as al…