CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co.

50 ITR 233High Court1963#7489 most cited
15

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 234BSection 115JAASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(10)Section 234DSection 32Section 42

Issues it is cited on

section 144(3)section 158asection 35(1)(ii)section 44csection 80ia(8)section 144c(10)section 115jaasection 42section 35(1)section 32(1)(iia)mat creditdepreciation on goodwill

Judgments citing CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co.

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 81/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the assessee states that the amount paid is to the non-registered/non-approved trust, and then take alternate pl…

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT (INT. TAXA-1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 80/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the assessee states that the amount paid is to the non-registered/non-approved trust, and then take alternate pl…

JOSHI TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC INDIA PROJECTS,AHMEDABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE(INT.TAXN.)-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 244/AHD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 80, 81 & 244/Ahd/2022 (Assessment Years 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

…non-compliance of condition provided under any other section, same could be considered as an allowable business loss: i. Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) ii. Harshad J. Choksi vs. CIT (2012) 349 ITR 250 (Bom) iii. CIT vs. R. B. Rungta & Co. (1963) 50 ITR 233 (Bom) 23. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the DRP/AO and submitted that the payment to non-recognized trust is not business loss. 24. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material on the record. At one point the assessee states that the amount paid is to the non-registered/non-approved trust, and then take alternate pl…

AARAV FRAGRANCE AND FLAVORS PVT LTD,THANE MAHARASHTRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE ONE THANE

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

ITA 301/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Aarav Fragrances & Flavors Acit, Circle-1, Thane, Private Limited Maharashtra Plot A-152/153, Wagle Industrial Vs. Area, Road No. 25, Midc, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400604. Pan: Aagca 2145 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue By : Dr. K.R. Subhash, Cit/Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 O R D E R Per Beena Pillai:

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh AthavaleFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT/DR
Section 143(2)Section 29Section 36(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aarav Fragrances And Flavors ACIT, Circle-1, Thane, Private Limited Maharashtra Plot A-152/153, Wagle Industrial vs. Area, Road No. 25, MIDC, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400604. PAN: AAGCA 2145 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Athavale Revenue by : Dr. K.R. Subhash, CIT/DR Date of Hearing : 01.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 09.10.2024 O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present appeal is fil…

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)

…debts were not satisfied by the assessee would not prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. [Para 11] • In fact, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co. [1963] 50 ITR 233 upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the loss could be allowed on general principles governing computation of profits under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is similar/identical to section 28 of the 1961 Act. The revenue in that case urged that the assessee having claimed deduction as a bad debt the benefit of the general pr…

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

…the assessee would not prevent him 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…

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

…the assessee would not prevent him 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…

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

…bts were not satisfied by the assessee would not prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. [Para 11] • In fact, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. R.B. Rungta 85 Co. [1963] 50 ITR 233 upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the loss could be allowed on general principles governing computation of profits under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is similar/identical to section 28 of the 1961 Act. The revenue in that case urged that the assessee having claimed deduction as a bad debt the benefit of the general pr…

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

…bts were not satisfied by the assessee would not prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. [Para 11] • In fact, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. R.B. Rungta 85 Co. [1963] 50 ITR 233 upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the loss could be allowed on general principles governing computation of profits under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is similar/identical to section 28 of the 1961 Act. The revenue in that case urged that the assessee having claimed deduction as a bad debt the benefit of the general pr…

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)

…ments; (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. V/s CIT (1990) 186 ITR 412 7. Per contra Departmental Representative supported…

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)

…sessee’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 15/6/2016 Lakshmikanta Deka/Sr.PS 5 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2…

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

…ing on the business and is related to the business operation is entitled to be deducted to arrive at the profits and gains of a business under section 28 of the Act. He referred to the decision of 4 ITA No.6056/Del./2013 CIT vs. R.B. Rungta & Co. reported in 50 ITR 233. After hearing the ld. AR as well as the department, the CIT (A) held as under :- “In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, it is clear that section 28 of the Act imposes a charge on the profits or gains of business or profession. The expression “profits and gains of business or profession” is to be understood in its ordinary c…

AVERY INDIA LTD.,HARYANA vs. D.C.I.T, CIR- 1, KOLKATA, 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)

…debts were not satisfied by the assessee would not prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. [Para 11] • In fact, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co. [1963] 50 ITR 233 upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the loss could be allowed on general principles governing computation of profits under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is similar/identical to section 28 of the 1961 Act. The revenue in that case urged that the assessee having claimed deduction as a bad debt the benefit of the general pr…

SUMMIT INVESTMENTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, SPL. RG-16, KOLKATA, 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)

…debts were not satisfied by the assessee would not prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. [Para 11] • In fact, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co. [1963] 50 ITR 233 upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the loss could be allowed on general principles governing computation of profits under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is similar/identical to section 28 of the 1961 Act. The ITA No. 338/Kol1999-C-AM 12 M/s. Summit Investments Ltd revenue in that case urged that the assessee having cla…

ITO,WARD-1(1), KOLKATA, 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

…debts were not satisfied by the assessee would not prevent him from claiming deduction as a business loss incurred in the course of carrying on business as share broker. [Para 11] • In fact, the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co. [1963] 50 ITR 233 upheld the finding of the Tribunal that the loss could be allowed on general principles governing computation of profits under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is similar/identical to section 28 of the 1961 Act. The revenue in that case urged that the assessee having claimed deduction as a bad debt the benefit of the general pr…

CIT v. R.B. Rungta & Co. (50 ITR 233) — Cited in 15 Judgments | BharatTax