Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. v. CIT

27 ITR 700High Court1955#5847 most cited
20

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 115JBSection 28Section 32Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40A(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(2)(xv)section 10(1)section 36(2)interest under section 234csection 80ibsection 234cmercantile system of accountingrevenue expenditurebook profitssection 80iadvance taxsection 270

Judgments citing Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. v. CIT

JCIT(OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JHANDEWALAN vs. SAHARA INDIA REAL ESTATE CORPORATION LTD., LUCKNOW

ITA 1085/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

…issue is that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Badri Das Daga vs. CTT 1958 AIR 783 34 ITR and Associated Banking Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT 56 ITR 1 also: 1. Ram Chander Shivnarayan vs. CIT 111 ITR 263 (SC), 2. Lord's Berry Farm Ltd, vs. CIT 27 ITR 700 (Mum.) 17 CO No. 36/Del/2024 Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. 3. GG DandekarMachine Works Ltd. vs. CIT 114 CTR 190 (Bom.) 4. Circular No.13 (C.No.27 (29-IT/43) dated 24.5.1994. 5. Nikon Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Appeal No.ITA 6115/De//2019 dated 15.05.2020 In light of the above facts as- well as legal position of the matter that the dis…

ACC INDIA PVT.LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1) DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4907/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…actually in the nature of capital loss and cannot be allowed as revenue expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. At this point, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 700 (Bom.) and stated in that case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered the issue that nomenclature does not matter whether it is a loss claimed under trading head or it is claimed as bad debts. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 10(1)(xv) as well as the provision…

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI vs. ACC INDIA PVT. LTD., DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 650/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaacit, Circle 1(1), Vs. Acc India Pvt. Ltd. 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, Room No. 159-A, C.R. Building, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi -19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 72/Del/2023 (Ita No. 650/Del/2020) (Ay 2015-16) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Acc India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1), 5Th Floor, 525, Basement, New Delhi Jasola, South Delhi, New Delhi-19 (Pan: Aalca9219Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr. Assesseeby : Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…actually in the nature of capital loss and cannot be allowed as revenue expenses u/s 37(1) of the Act. At this point, the learned counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 700 (Bom.) and stated in that case Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered the issue that nomenclature does not matter whether it is a loss claimed under trading head or it is claimed as bad debts. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 10(1)(xv) as well as the provision…

THE DY CIT CC-38, MUMBAI vs. M/S. UNITED PHOSPHOUROUS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4099/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Dec 2024AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt.Renu Jauhri, Accountan Member

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Heera Ram Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…issue in respect of tender deposit written off is covered by the following decisions in favour of the appellant (a) Badridas Daga vs. CIT (34 ITR 10) (SC) (b) Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceutical Limited (ITA No. 6159/Mum/2003) (c) Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT (27 ITR 700) (Bombay) 14.9. Further, it is submitted that amount written off as irrecoverable is allowable as deduction in the year of it being debited to Profit and Loss Account. It is well settled position that it is not necessary for the appellant to prove that the debt is irrecoverable. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme…

ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA ( FORMELRY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD), MUMBAI

In the result, (i) the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose (ii) the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and (iii) the Cross Objections filed by the assessee ...

ITA 2188/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal & Co 76/Mum/2013 (A.Y 2003-04) Novartis India Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Vs. Novartis India Limited Of Income–Tax–14(1)(1) Inspire Bkc, 7Th Floor, Room No 432, Bandra Kurla Complex, Aaykar Bhawan, Bandra (E) M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400020 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2914F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 37(1)Section 41(3)Section 80H

…iture or alternatively as business loss u/s 28. For the same, we draw support from the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Lord Dairy Farm 34 ITA. No. 2308&2188/Mum/2012 &C.O.76/Mum/2013(A.Y.: 2003-04) Novartis India Limited, Mumbai Ltd. V/s CIT (1955 27 ITR 700); IBM World Trade Corpn. V/s CIT (48 Taxman 11); the decision of Mumbai Tribunal ion ACIT V/s Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Ltd. (ITA Nos.5781/Mum/2016 &ors. dated 03/10/2018). The ratio of all the stated decisions support the conclusion that advances lost during the course of business would be business losses. Therefore, we are inclined to…

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

…of the considered opinion that the claim is allowable in terms of Sec. 37(1) as business expenditure or alternatively as business loss u/s 28. For the same, we draw support from the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Lord Dairy Farm Ltd. V/s CIT (1955 27 ITR 700); IBM World Trade Corpn. V/s CIT (48 Taxman 11); the decision of Mumbai Tribunal ion ACIT V/s Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Ltd. (ITA Nos.5781/Mum/2016 &ors. dated 03/10/2018). The ratio of all the stated decisions support the conclusion that advances lost during the course of business would be business losses. Therefore, we are inclined to…

GE HYDRO FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2086/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

…on behalf of the Revenue is that the loss have been shown as bad debt for the financial year 1993-94 and not for the assessment year 1999-2000. In our opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 700. In that case also there was defalcation between May, 1946, and April, 1947. The amount actually embezzled in the relevant accounting year 1st April, 1947, to 31st Mach, 1948. The assessee therein claimed deduction in the assessment year 1947-48. The learned Bench of this court was pleased to hold that as the assessee wrote of this amount in the y…

GE HYDRO FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2085/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 40Section 44B

…on behalf of the Revenue is that the loss have been shown as bad debt for the financial year 1993-94 and not for the assessment year 1999-2000. In our opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 700. In that case also there was defalcation between May, 1946, and April, 1947. The amount actually embezzled in the relevant accounting year 1st April, 1947, to 31st Mach, 1948. The assessee therein claimed deduction in the assessment year 1947-48. The learned Bench of this court was pleased to hold that as the assessee wrote of this amount in the y…

FINQUEST SECURITIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-3(4), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 623/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115JSection 250Section 36(2)

…e in AY 2015-16 no such compensation had been made. So the question of allowing any loss in AY 2015-16 does not arise. 7.5 The case laws relied upon by the appellant, namely, Badridas Daga vs. CIT[1958] 34 ITR 10 (SC) and Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 700 (Bom) also cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as here the fraud has been committed by the employee in respect of the client/customer by embezzling shares from the client's D-mat account. The loss to the assessee will only arise when it actually compensates such client. It is clear no such compensation has been made 8 ITA 623/Mum/2…

JCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. DAAWAT FOODS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2387/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A
Section 10Section 14A

…/37 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)] (ii) Associated Banking Corporation of India Vs. CIT [56 ITR 1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009]. 12. In so far as write off of sundry advances of Rs.7,82,259/- the ld. Counsel submits that in the finan…

DAWAT FOODS LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1758/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A
Section 10Section 14A

…/37 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following decisions in support of the above contentions:- (i) Badridas Daga Vs. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC)] (ii) Associated Banking Corporation of India Vs. CIT [56 ITR 1 (SC)] (iii) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT [27 ITR 700 (Bom)] (iv) Harshad J. Choksi Vs. CIT [349 ITR 250 (Bom)] (v) Vasanji Sons & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [125 ITR 462 (Bom)] (vi) CIT Vs. Investa Industrial Corporation Ltd. [119 ITR 380 (Bom)] (vii) McDowell & Co. Vs. ACIT [ITA. No. 217/Bang./2009]. 12. In so far as write off of sundry advances of Rs.7,82,259/- the ld. Counsel submits that in the finan…

PARRY PHYTOREMEDIES PRIVATE LIMITED, (E.I.D. PARRY INDIA LIMITED),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 20/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.20/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014 Parry Phytoremedies Private Limited (Now Known As E.I.D. Parry (India) Limited) S.No.73/2, Shivane Industrial Estate, Warje, Nda Rd, Nr Agarwal Godown, Pune – 411023 Pan: Aaccp9589J . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 4, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. A. Gundecha Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/11/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 01/02/2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Ascended Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 24/02/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 17

For Appellant: Shri S. A. GundechaFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37

…ed by the appellant also finds force [though the decision was in context of bad debts] in the ratio laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in “CIT Vs Wackhardt International Ltd” (Supra) wherein their lordships placing reliance on “Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. v. CIT” reported 27 ITR 700, vide para 3 have held that; “As the assessee wrote of this amount in the year of account, the court was entitled to presume that the amount became irrecoverable when the assessee wrote it off in its books of account and that, therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim the amount. In our opinion, therefore, even if duty drawback ITAT-Pune Page…

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 926/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…mchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 35. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The contentions of the assessee that the said expenses/sum becomes irrecoverable were not disputed by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well…

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…mchandar Shivnarayan vs. CIT – (1978) 111 ITR 263 (SC) - Devi Films (P) Ltd. vs. CIT – (1970) 75 ITR 301 (Mad) - T.L. Lalvani vs. CIT – (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom) - DCIT vs. Gujarat Small Industries Corporation – 84 TTJ 22 (Ahd) - Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs CIT – 27 ITR 700 (Bom) 34. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 35. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. The contentions of the assessee that the said expenses/sum becomes irrecoverable were not disputed by the Revenue Authorities. Therefore, the Assessing Officer as well…

HBA STUDIO PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 11(1), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 4015/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmam/S. Hba Studio Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, L-41, Connaught Circus, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110001 New Delhi Pan – Aabch8171R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 37(1)

…pany [2016] 74 taxmann.com 100(Visakhapatnam- Trib.), (viii) Chenab Forest Co. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [1974] 96 ITR 568 (J.& K.HC), (ix) Jethabhai Hirji and Jethabhai Ramdas vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 792 (BOM.HC) (x) Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 700 (Bom.HC) to contend that advances lost towards procurement of stock in trade in the hands of the taxpayer in the course of business would be allowable as business expense. Ld. Counsel specifically referred to the judgment in the case of TRF Ltd. vs. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 397 to contend that the assessee is not required to prove that the amounts have…

DCIT, C.CIRCLE-5(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S CELLO PENS AND STATIONERY PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 305/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2021AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 37Section 37(1)

…on behalf of the Revenue is that the loss have been shown as bad debt for the financial year 1993-94 and not for the assessment year 1999-2000. In our opinion, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 700. In that case also there was defalcation between May, 1946, and April, 1947. The amount actually embezzled in the relevant accounting year 1st April, 1947, to 31st Mach, 1948. The assessee therein claimed deduction in the assessment year 1947-48. The learned Bench of this court was pleased to hold that as the assessee wrote of this amount in the y…

NOVARTIS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3379/MUM/2009[2001-02]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2021AY 2001-02
For Appellant: Shri Jehangir D. Mistry (Ld. SrFor Respondent: Shri Salil Mishra-CIT DR and Shri Tharian Oommen-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…of the considered opinion that the claim is allowable in terms of Sec. 37(1) as business expenditure or alternatively as business loss u/s 28. For the same, we draw support from the decisions of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Lord Dairy Farm Ltd. V/s CIT (1955 27 ITR 700); IBM World Trade Corpn. V/s CIT (48 Taxman 11); the decision of Mumbai Tribunal ion ACIT V/s Sodexo Food Solutions India Private Ltd. (ITA Nos.5781/Mum/2016 & ors. dated 03/10/2018). The ratio of all the stated decisions support the conclusion that advances lost during the course of business would be business losses. Therefore, we are inclined to…

MANOJ SHIVYAG SINGH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENT. CIR. 5(1), MUMBAI

In the result the ground No

ITA 5375/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rifaur Rahmanmanoj Shivyag Singh Dcit Central Circle- 5(1) Babubhai Gaikwad Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. Trikam Das Road, Kandivali Vs. (West), Mumbai-40067. Pan: Asjps4147D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri V.G. Ginde With Kumar Kala (Ar) Respondent By : Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.Dr)

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde with Kumar KalaFor Respondent: Miss Sumantha Mullamudi (Sr.DR)
Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(vii)

…ssessee also relied upon the following decisions;  CIT versus Mysore Sugar Co Ltd (1946) 46 ITR 469 (SC),  T.J. Lalwani versus CIT (1970) 78 ITR 176 (Bom),  IBM World Trade Corporation (1990) 186 ITR 412 (Mum) and  Lord’s Dairy Farms Ltd versus CIT (1958) 27 ITR 700 (Bom). 17. Finally, the ld AR for the assessee would submit that the ld CIT(A) has not examined the alternative claim of the assessee and prayed that this issue may be restored to the file of assessing officer or ld. CIT(A) to examine it afresh. 18. On the other hand the learned AR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The lear…

DCIT 10(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HALDYN GLASS LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2043/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

…itimately written off by the company at the close of the accounting year corresponding to the asst. yr. 1958-59. The Hon'ble Court after placing reliance on the decisions of Badridas Daga vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 10 (SC) and Lord's Dairy Farm Ltd. vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 700 (Bom) held that the embezzlement committed cannot be likened to a partner over drawing his account. with the firm. Had the withdrawals been made. during the course and for the purpose of business of the company, there would be no embezzlement and, therefore, while considering the admissibility of the deduction it is irrelevant that the particular…

NATIONAL SECURITIES CLEARING CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 7(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 3650/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm National Securities Clearing Corporation Ltd. C-1, Block-G, Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051. Appellant (Pan: Aaacn2642L) Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-7(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Respondent Appellant By: Arvind Sonde Respondent By: Sanjeev Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.04.2016

For Appellant: Arvind SondeFor Respondent: Sanjeev Jain, DR
Section 143(3)

…ess operation and the liability and this fact that it is incidental to business cannot be denied by any one. In view of this, Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Lord’s Dairy Farm Ltd. Vs. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 700 (Bom) and also tribunal’s order in the case of ACIT Vs. Lord Krishna Bank Ltd. in ITA Nos. 476, 581 & 716/Coch/2007 for AYs 2002-03 to 2004-05 dated 27.04.2012. 9. On the other hand, the Ld. Sr. DR heavily relied on the orders of the CIT(A) and also that of the AO. 10. We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the…