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 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 28 Section 115JB Section 37(1)Section 234B Section 250 Section 37 Section 14A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 10(1)section 90a unexplained jewellery section 24(b)section 36(2)under-reporting of income withholding tax section 80c foreign tax credit commercial expediency royalty income disallowance of interest expenditure

Judgments citing Badridas Daga v. CIT

DCIT, Circle - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. Mcnally Sayaji Engineering Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1575/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…cement of flooring/foundation has been considered by the authorities below only from the angle of current repairs as provided in section 31(i) and not under section 37. As held, inter alia, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Badridas Daga –vs.- CIT [34 ITR 10] and Calcutta Company Limited –vs. – CIT [37 ITR 1], even if the expenditure made by the assessee cannot be described as current repairs, he is entitled to invoke the benefit of section 37. Even in the case of Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Limited (supra), Hon’ble Delhi High Court while holding that the amount spent for replacement of administr…

DCIT, Circle-1, Kolkata vs. M/S Mcnally Bharati Engineering Co.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 532/KOL/2012[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No.100/Kol/2011 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Soumen Adak, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Vijayendra Kumar, JCIT

Section 115JSection 43B

…uly furnished, the order of CIT(A) holding that advances written off in the course of business is allowable u/ s 28 r.w.s. 37(1) was upheld. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga -vs.- CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) has held that :- 32 ITA No.100/Kol/2011& C.O.No.13/Kol/2011 532&217,533&218/Kol/2012 M/s. Mcnally Bharat Engg.Co.Ltd A.Yr.2006-07 “When a claim is made for a deduction for which there is no specific provision u/s 10(2), whether it is admissible or not will depend on whether, having regard to accepted commercial practice .and trading principle…

National Housing Bank, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result ground No. 8 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 3704/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishinational Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Lodhi Road, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Page 2 Of 50 National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) National Housing Bank, Addl Cit, Core-5A, India Habitat Centre, Range-31(1), Vs. Lodhi Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR

Section 271Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ion 28 of the Act and should be allowed as business loss. The assessee has placed reliance on following judicial pronouncements wherein it is held that embezzlement of funds by wrong/fraudulent deals are allowable as deduction: (a) Badrinath Daga v. CIT[1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) . (b) CIT v. Nainital Bank [1965] 55 ITR 707 (SC) (c) Indian Insurance Banking corporation limited v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 123 (Ker) (d) Ramachandra Shivnarayan v. CIT [1978] 111 ITR 263 (SC). In Badrinath Daga v. CIT [1958J 34 ITR 10(SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the question whether amount lost through embezzlement by an employee i…

Essel Infraprojects Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2006-07 is treated as allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 36(1)(iii)

…ile grouping the revenue and capital in one group does not change in nature of each other. Finally the way in which the accounting entries are made by an assessee does not decide the nature or allowability of expense. Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Badridas Daga (34 ITR 10) after referring to the decision in Chimavis case, Gresham Life Assurance Society vs Styles and Pondicherry Railways Cos case, their Lorships proceeded to observe: "The result in 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…

DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. Hexaware Technologies Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by revenue is dismissed whereas Cross objection filed by assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4688/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman

…. The assessee had informed about these circumstances and the loss so incurred to Bombay Stock Exchange, SEBI, etc. The assessee had placed reliance on the following case laws for allowing the loss so incurred as business loss. i) Badridas Oaga vs CIT [1958] (34 ITR 10) (SC) ii) Pandyan Builders Vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (45TTJ 524)(Mad) iii) Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (78 ITD 175)(Cal)(TM) iv) Kothari & Sons Vs. CIT (1996) (61 ITR 23)(Mad.) However, the AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and held that the assessee had itself stated that these transactions were unauthorized and o…

Mega Bollywood P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2822/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Mukwanal, D.R

Section 143(3)

…fence to his arguments the ld counsel relied on a number of decisions namely P. Satyanarayana V Commissioer of Income Tax 116 ITR 803(AP), CIT V Sethu Film Distributors 212ITR 620(Mad) , CIT V Crescent Films Pvt Ltd 248 ITR 670 (Mad), Badridas Daga V CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) and T.J. Lalwani V CIT(A) 78 ITR 176(Bom).Lastly the ld counsel summarising his arguments submitted that the ld CIT(A) erred in treating the transaction of purchase as prior period expenses which was a genuine purchase and also treating the agreement of finance and sharing of revenue to secure the repayment of money advanced as agreement f…

M/S Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. ACIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 1364/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde, Senior CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT-II (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 928Section 92C

…land was not acquired no asset was came into existence. Therefore there is no question of allowing depreciation on such asset. The learned Authorised Representative has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga Vs. CIT 34 ITR 10 and submitted that when the employee of the assessee withdrew 38 IT(TP)A No.1364/Bang/2011 Tally Solutions Pvt. Ltd. the money from the bank account and misappropriate the same, the claim of business loss was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the claim as business loss sustained by the assessee as a result…

M/S Obulapuram Mining Co., Pvt. Ltd., Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 653/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sibichen K.Mathew, CIT-III

Section 131Section 37

…ndary leases once the boundary line/stations are disturbed. ITA No.653(B)/2015 Thereafter, reliance has been placed on the following judicial pronouncements a) CIT Vs Piara Singh 124 ITR 40(SC) b) CIT Vs S.C.Kothari 82 ITR 794 (SC) c) Badridas Daga Vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) 10. The ld. DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. 11. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all we reproduce the relevant portion of report of the three member committee on irregularity in Iron ore mining leases in Bellary as available in 50 & 51 of the paper book. “ The mining leases listed from S…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 259/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 2769/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Circle-16(1), 117, Ground Floor, World Trade New Delhi Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 323/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 M/S Timex Watches Ltd., Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income 117, Ground Floor, World Trade Tax, Circle-16(1), Centre, Babar Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact0773C

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

…ess be allowed as a deduction u/s 37(1) of the Act and in the alternative, it was to be allowed as business loss u/s 28(i) of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Ramachandar Shivnarayan Vs CIT 111 ITR 268 (SC) " Badridas Daga Vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC) " Commonwealth Trust (India) Ltd. Vs CIT 242 ITR 593 (Ker) " Shitla Prasad Shyam Lal Vs CIT 96 CTR 150 (All) " Kamla Cotton Company Vs CIT 226 ITR 605 (All) " A. W. Figgis and Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs CIT 254 ITR 63 (Cal) ITA Nos. 258 & 259/Del/2013 Timex Watches Ltd. 18. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Group India Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 258/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Timex Watches Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2769/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. K.M. Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR

ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Axiom Share Broking P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1198/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Income Tax Officer-1(1)- Vs. M/S. Axiom Share Broking Pvt. Ltd., 819/820, 8Th Floor, P. J. (1), Room No.534/579, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai Towers, Stock Exchange, Mumbai 400 020 Samachar Marg, Mumbai 400 020 Pan: Aafca 0309 Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

…h Court has held that even if the deduction was not allowable as a bad debt, the assessee’s claim for deduction as a business loss is to be allowed. For arriving the conclusion Hon’ble High Court referred the ratio of Apex court in Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) and Bombay High court judgment in CIT v. R.B. Rungta and Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom.) and the facts of the case before us, we confirm the order of the CIT (A) deleting the disallowance. 7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/06/2016. (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 15/6…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escorts Finance Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 6673/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. R.M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…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 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 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. There is no dispute that the appellant is a NBFC and is in the business of money le…

Bayer Bioscience Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2685/DEL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year : 2004-05 D.C.I.T. 14(1), Vs. Bayer Bioscience P. Ltd., Mumbai. (Formerly M/S. Proagro Seed Co. P. Ltd. ), Bayer House, Hiranandani Garden, Powai, Mumbai.[Pan: Aaacp 3459M]

For Respondent: Smt. Anima Barnwal, DR

…ofits and gains of a year; and in assessing the amount of the profits and gains of a year account must necessarily be taken of all losses incurred, otherwise you would not arrive at the true profits and gains. " It was submitted that in Badridas Daga vs CIT (34 ITR 10) and Calcutta Co Ltd vs. CIT ( 37 ITR 1) the Supreme Court quoted the observations of Lord Russell and held that an item of loss or expenditure not falling within any of the express deductions may be allowed if it is deductible on ordinary principles of commercial accounting. The business losses, though they fall outside the purview of section 30 t…

M/S. B O C India Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Cir-12, Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 669/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 28

…ed that security deposits were made on revenue account in the course of normal business activities. These were written off as they became irrecoverable. The assessee also relied in the decision of Hon’ble Apex Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga v. CIT 34 ITR 10 wherein it was held that loss other than capital loss which is really incidental to the business is allowable under section 28 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also relied in the case of Satluj Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 116 ITR 1 wherein it was held that the loss on account of trading assets was allowable deduction and the loss on account of cap…

D.C.I.T., Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S. B O C India Ltd

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1071/KOL/2008[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)Section 28

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Escotrac Finance and Investments Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6056/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Yatendra Singh, Senior DR

Section 148Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 68

…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 Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Badridas Daga v. Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 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. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, it can be concluded that even if the deduc…

Avery India Ltd., Haryana vs. D.C.I.T, Cir- 1, Kolkata

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

ITA 601/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kedia, ld.A/RFor Respondent: Shri D. Naskar, JCIT, ld.DR

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

…ing to that effect, it has to be allowed as a deduction on its write off in terms of section 28 of the Act. 2.3.3. We place reliance on the following decisions in this regard:- A. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Badridas Daga vs CIT reported in (1959) 34 ITR 10 (SC) , wherein it was held that : “When a claim is made for a deduction for which there is no specific provision u/s. 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 be incidental to it. The loss f…

Summit Investments Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Spl. RG-16, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 338/KOL/1999[1995-1996]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2015AY 1995-1996

Bench: : Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri J.P Khaitan, Sr. Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Mukherjee,JCIT, ld.DR

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…/s. Summit Investments Ltd “The Court : After hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties the matter is remanded to the learned tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of the judgement in the case of Badridas Daga vs CIT reported in (1958) 34 ITR 10 wherein the following views were adopted:- a. the theory that once moneys were put into the bank they had ‘got home’ and their subsequent withdrawal from the bank would be de hors the business was inapplicable to a business such as banking or money-lending; b. as the business of the appellant consisted in lending moneys, realizing them and making…

ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Shree Gouri Shankar Jute Mills Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 1185/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherjee, JCIT, ld.DR

Section 143(3)Section 36(2)Section 37

…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…