CIT v. National Bank

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxcircle 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3436/Mum/2024 is allowed

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

…ous year itself. The first question is, therefore, answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” He further relied on the order of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of G.G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd vs CIT (1993) 202 ITR 161 (Bom)held that “Section 28(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business loss/deductions - Allowable as - Assessment year 1973-74 - Whether if loss incurred by assessee is found to be incidental to carrying on of his business, it will be deductible as a trading loss in computing profits of assessee from said business - Held, yes - Whether where there…

DCIT-9(1)(1), Hyderabad vs. M/S.Trinethra Super Retail Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

…rt held that, write-off claimed on the basis of deterioration for various materials including raw materials, and in particular slow moving items would be entitled for deduction. 6.1.3 Similarly, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High court in case of G I G Dandekar (202 ITR 161) held that, embezzlement of the amount from assesses current account which was maintained by it for running of its business was incidental to business of assessee and was, therefore allowable. 6.1.4 The appellant company also relied on Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in case of DCIT vs M/s Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Ltd. (ITA No 859fMuni/2003)…

DCIT 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Haldyn Glass Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

…MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Haldyan Glass Ltd., embezzlement committed by the agent must be deducted while computing the company's assessable profit under s.10(1) of the 1922 Act. 3.3.5 Similarly in the case of G.G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd vs. CIT (1993) 202 ITR 161 (Bom) relying on the decision of CIT vs. Nainital Bank Ltd. (1965) 55 FIR 707 (SC),Ramchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC), Sassoon J. David Co, (P) Ltd.vs. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 50 (Bom), CIT vs.P.V.Gore &. Co. (1983) 143 ITR 922(Bom) and Badridas Daga vs. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) , it was held that the real controversy that falls for…

ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Baanganga Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P K Bansal & Shri Pawan Singhassessment Year : 2010-11 Ito 14(1)(1) Baanganga Jewellers, Mumbai 130/132 Chanfra Mahal, Vs. 8 Sheikh Memon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai 400 002

…place. It is not a case where we can say that the evidence has been created by the assessee. Had it been the case, FIR u/s. 408 of the IPC would not have been lodged. Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of G. G. Dandekar Machine Works Ltd. vs. CIT 202 ITR 161 has clearly held whether any loss from theft, dacoity, embezzlement, etc., is deductible or not, what is material is whether the loss incurred by theft, dacoity, etc., is incidental to the carrying on of the business. It does not make much difference whether such act is committed by the employees of the assessee or by strangers. It is difficu…

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

…arrying of the business is allowed as business loss. In support of this preposition the appellant relied on the following cases: • Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) • ClT vs. Nainital bank (55 ITR 707) (SC) • G.G:Dandekar machine Works Ltd. Vs. ClT (202 ITR 161) (Born) • Pandyan Builders vs. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (45 TTJ 524) (Mad) • Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (78 ITD 175) (CQ)) (TM) • Kothari & Sons vs. ClT (1966) (61 ITR 23) (Mad.) 5.10 The appellant also relied on CBDT’s Circular No.35-D(XLVII- 20)[F.No.10/48/65-IT-)A-1], dated 24.11.1965. Further appellant has mentioned that…