CHANDRASHEKAR HEMANTH ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2)(4) BANGALORE, BENGALURU

ITA 1677/BANG/2024Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 January 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K. (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the losses brought forward were from AYs 2012-13 and 2013-14, for which returns were filed in time. The belated filing of the AY 2016-17 return did not affect the carry forward and set off of losses from earlier years. The Tribunal also noted calculation errors in the losses.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed set off of brought forward losses of Rs. 45,18,838/- for AY 2017-18. The AO disallowed this claim, stating the assessee had filed their return for AY 2016-17 belatedly, thus disentitling them to set off losses as per Section 80. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the belated filing of a return for one assessment year affects the carry forward and set off of losses from earlier assessment years when those earlier returns were filed in time. Whether there were errors in the calculation of brought forward losses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80,Section 139(1),Section 72(3),Section 32(2),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K.

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 19/07/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18 on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The learned CIT(A) and AO had grossly erred in passing the order without giving due consideration of the facts and records lying before the officer.

2.

The impugned order of the Ld.AO, being beyond the scope of limited scrutiny, is bad in law; 3. The learned CIT(A) and AO had erred in passing an order without duly considering the facts as to the nature and period of such losses that have been claimed in the return of income for due setting off.

4.

The learned CIT(A)

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 80

All 144 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →