CIT v. Smt Pukhraj Wati Bubber

296 ITR 290Reported decision2008#24424 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2018.

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt Pukhraj Wati Bubber

EXTERIOR-INTERIOR PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2224/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ] Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri T.P.Kar, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 2

…gs of the AO before me as well. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with any of the findings of AO and the action of AO is hereby confirmed. This ground is dismissed.” 5. Learned counsel representing assessee quotes case law in CIT vs Smt Pukhraj Wati Bubber 296 ITR 290 (Punjab & Haryana), Badridas Daga vs CIT 34 ITR 10 (SC), CIT vs Nainital Bank Ltd 55 ITR 707 (SC), Ramchandra Shivnarayan vs CIT 111 ITR 263 (AP) to plead that any loss caused by way of dacoity, embezzlement is a trading loss allowable u/s 37 of the Act in the event of a direct nexus between theft vis-avis the relevant business operations. Learne…

DCIT, COIMBATORE vs. BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LTD., COIMBATORE

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1262/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37

…d the case is still pending. Since, the loss arouse in the course f carrying on of normal business activities the same has been claimed as business expenditure u/s 37. The conditions stipulated u/s.37 also are fully complied with. vs Smt. Pukhraj Wati Bubber 296 ITR 290.” However the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of loss incurred due to embezzlement of cash by the staff of the assessee company during the course of the business of the assessee company by holding that any provision on uncertain liability cannot be allowed as deduction, and thereby made addition of Rs.94,33,665/- in the hands of the assessee. 6.…

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)

…Oaga v CIT [1958) 34ITR 10 (SQ (b) CIT v. Nainital Bank [1965) 55 ITR 707 (SQ (c) Indian Insurance Banking corporation limited v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 123 (Kerala) (d) (d) RamachandraShivnarayanv. CIT[1978]111 ITR263(SC) (e) CITv. Smt, Pukhraj Wati Bubber [2008] 296 ITR 290 (Punjab & Haryana) In Badridas Daga v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding the question whether amount lost through embezzlement by an employee is a trading loss which could be deducted in computing the profits of a business, has held that “in deciding whether loss resulting from embezzlement by an employee in a in a b…