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)

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor

In the result, the appeals of the assesses in ITA no

ITA 238/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

…. I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 17.6.1 The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tri…

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 213/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

…. I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 17.6.1 The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tri…

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, the appeals of the assessesin ITA no

ITA 210/COCH/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

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

…. I.T.A. Nos.27-35/Coch/2019, 54&55/Coch/2019, 208-213/Coch/2019, 238&239/Coch/2019, 207/Coch/2019 & 304-310/Coch/2019 17.6.1 The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: 1. Common Cause vs. UOI (2017) 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 2. BadridasDaga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Rajasthan and Gujarati Charitable Foundation Poona (2018) 402 ITR 441(SC) 4. CIT vs. Sardarilal& Co. (2001) 251 ITR 864 (Del) (FB) 5. Sanjay Rungta vs. Office of the CIT (2014) 266 CTR 181 (Jhar) 6. M.M. Financiers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai) 7. ITO vs. RajkumarBirla in ITA No.943 to 945/Hyd/2012 – Hyderabad Tri…

Dholu Construction & Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3144/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)(x)Section 801ASection 801A(4)

…ing on the above factual aspects, the Id AO erroneously held that the amount written off was loans and advance. In fact as stated in Statement of facts, this is fundamental misconception of the AO. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Badridas daga vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) and in CIT vs Nainital Bank 55 ITR 707 (SC) any loss incidental to carrying on of the business is allowable deduction in computing business profit under section 28 of the Income tax Act. This is also the view taken by Bombay High Court in G.G.Dandekar Machine Works vs CIT202 ITR 161 (Bom). The jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of C…

Centrum Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4120/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm Centrum Broking Ltd., Vs. D.C.I.T., 4(1)(1) Centrum House, 5Th Floor, Mumbai. Cst Road, Vidyanagari Marg, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098. Pan/Gir No.Aabca 1498 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the documents filed by

Section 143(3)

…hus we found that the aforesaid loss has incurred in the course of business of the company and therefore should be allowed as a business loss. Reliance is placed on following decisions: a. Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt Ltd. - 98 ITR 50 (Bom), b. BadridasDaga - 34 ITR 10 (SC). c. Harshad Choksi - 349 ITR 250 (Bom), d. Boots Piramal Health Care Ltd - 3213/Mum/2009 (now known as M/s Nicholas Piramal Consumer Products Pvt. Ltd). 7. It was argued by the ld. AR that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Associated Banking Corporation of India Limited vs CIT reported in 56 ITR 1(SC) has held that "the loss by embezz…

J.P. Morgan India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 4(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2745/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2745/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2004-05) In The Matter Of: J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan Towers, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. बिधम/ Off- Cst Road, Kalina Road, Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400098. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2452/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. J. P. Morgan Towers, Off- Cst Road, Kalina Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1022G आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2746/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2005-06) J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Ltd. Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan Towers, Aayakarbhavan, M.K. बिधम/ Off- Cst Road, Kalina Road, Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400098. & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2453/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Dcit Range -4(3)(1), J. P. Morgan India Pvt. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd. बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. J. P. Morgan Towers, Off- Cst Road, Kalina Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400098. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaacj1022G अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agrawal, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri V. Jenardhanan & Subhas Kulkarni, Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 05/04/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 26.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan &

Section 250

…as also detailed the respective clients as also the employee responsible for committing such error. Apart from the aforesaid, the Ld. Representative pointed out that the ratio of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10 is clearly applicable inasmuch as the impugned loss has taken place in the course of carrying on of the business. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Pvt. Ltd Vs Addl. CIT in ITA No. 6979/Mum/2008 dated 29.06.2012, wherein, loss suffered on acco…

Ranee Agency, Kolkata vs. ITO., WD - 55(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1379/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1379/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri Utpal Ranjan Dutt, Partner(Ranee Agency)For Respondent: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 156(3)Section 271(1)Section 28Section 29Section 37(1)

…r section 28(i) itself {Addl CIT vs Rustam Jehangir Vakil Mills Ltd. [1976]103 ITR 298,310 (Guj)}. Hence, embezzlement / defalcation loss has to be claimed under section 28(i) of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga vs CIT [1958] 34 ITR 10. The Supreme Court in that case observed that a business especially such as is calculated to yield taxable profits has to be carried on through agents, cashiers, clerks and peons. If employment of agents is incidental to the carrying on of business, it must logically follow that losses which are incidental to such employment are also incidental to…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paragon Xt, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 363/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

Section 194C

…85 (HL) "in its natural and proper sense - in a sense which no commercial man would misunderstand". This principle has been approved by the Privy Council in Pondicherry Railway Co. Ltd. v. CIT 5 ITC 363, and by the Supreme Court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10, Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 1 (SC) and CIT v. BaiShirinbai (K) Kooka (1962) 46 ITR 86. The profits mentioned herein are the real profits and they must be ascertained on ordinary principles of commercial practice and commercial accounting. Therefore, the assessee's method of accounting becomes relevant for determining the income from the…

Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 306/RJT/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 37

…on a profession or a business which necessarily requires deducting expenses and ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. 14 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 i…

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S Hiravati Marine Products (P) Ltd., Porbandar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 947/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed"नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2007-2008 Addl. Commissioner Of Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Income Tax, Vs Ltd. Range-2, Porbandar, Jamnagar. Pan No: Aabch2110C "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2008-2009

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gokani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.D.R

Section 37

…on a profession or a business which necessarily requires deducting expenses and ITA Nos.947/Rjt/2010 & 306/Rjt/2013 A.Ys.2007-08 & 2008-09. 14 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 i…

The ACIT, Thiruvalla vs. M/S.Muthoot Properties & Investments, Kozhencherry

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

ITA 75/COCH/2018[2005-06]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

…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,…

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Muthoot Properties & Investments, Kozhencherry

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

ITA 74/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

…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,…

The ACIT, Thiruvalla vs. M/S.Muthoot Properties & Investments, Kozhencherry

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

ITA 73/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

…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,…

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry

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

ITA 72/COCH/2018[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

…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,…

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry

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

ITA 71/COCH/2018[2004-05]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

…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,…

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry

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

ITA 70/COCH/2018[2003-04]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2003-04

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

…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,…

The ACIT, Circle-1, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Pathanamthitta

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

ITA 69/COCH/2018[2002-03]Status: HeardITAT Cochin21 Feb 2019AY 2002-03

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

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 45Section 57

…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,…

Rasna Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal ITA 2334/Ahd/2015 filed by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2334/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 41(1)

…"expenditure" as used in case of No. sec.37 may, in circumstances of particulars case, cover an amount which is really a loss, even though said amount has not gone out from pocket of the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v. CIT (34 ITR 10) Calcutta Co. Ltd. v, CIT (37 ITR 1) has held that the profit to be assessed are the real profits and they must be ascertained on ordinary principles of commercial trading and commercial accounting. The profit should be computed after deducting losses and expenditure incurred for the purposes of busin BSS unless such losses or expenditure are expre…

Anil Puri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6160/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 16

…nexure C-120 & C-121 for your ready reference. The said loss is an allowable expenditure, being incidental to the carrying of business of the assessee. This principle has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Badri Das Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC).” 5. A perusal of the assessment order shows that no addition on this account was made, meaning thereby the above explanation of the assessee stood considered and accepted by the Assessing Officer at the original stage of assessment proceedings. It is not in dispute that the impugned notice u/s. 148 has been issued beyond the period of limita…

M/S. Bhagirath Coach & Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 351/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Bhagirath Coach & Dcit 1(1), Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Indore C/O M. Mehta & Co, 11/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aaacb7112P Revenue By Shri R.P. Mourya, Sr.Dr Assessee By S/Shri S.N. Agrawal & Pankaj Mogra,Cas Date Of Hearing 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 O R D E R

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

…to the business carried on by the assessee. Reliance was placed on following judgments; (i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Narandas Mathuradas & Co. V/s CIT (1959) 35 ITR 461 (Bom). (ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga V/s CIT 34 ITR 10 (iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s R.B. Rungta & Co. 50 ITR 233 (iv) Madeva Upendra Sinai Vs. Union of India (1975) 98 ITR 209 (SC) (v) Ramchandar Shivnarayan Vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263(SC) Bhagirath Coach & Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd Jwala Prasad Radha Kishan V/s CIT (1971) 79 ITR 530 (All.) (vii) I.B.M. World Trade Corpn.…

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

The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam vs. Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

Dholu Construction & Projects Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Centrum Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai

J.P. Morgan India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO RG 4(3)(1), Mumbai

Ranee Agency, Kolkata vs. ITO., WD - 55(1), Kolkata

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Paragon Xt, New Delhi

Hiravati Marine Products Pvt. Ltd., Porbandar vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jamnagar

The ACIT, Circle-2, Jamnagar vs. M/S Hiravati Marine Products (P) Ltd., Porbandar

The ACIT, Thiruvalla vs. M/S.Muthoot Properties & Investments, Kozhencherry

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Muthoot Properties & Investments, Kozhencherry

The ACIT, Thiruvalla vs. M/S.Muthoot Properties & Investments, Kozhencherry

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry

DCIT, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Kozhencherry

The ACIT, Circle-1, Thiruvalla vs. Mar Gregorious Memorial Muthoot Medical Centre, Pathanamthitta

Rasna Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT., Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

Anil Puri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-49(1), New Delhi

M/S. Bhagirath Coach & Metal Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT 1(1), Indore