DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. KARVY GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the business was 'set up' as per Section 3 of the Income Tax Act, which is sufficient for claiming expenditure, even if commercial operations had not fully commenced. The assessee had also generated some revenue.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed business losses for AYs 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Assessing Officer disallowed these losses, contending that the business had not commenced operations and the expenses were pre-operative.
What were the issues?
Whether expenditure incurred before the commencement of commercial operations is allowable as a business loss if the business is considered 'set up'.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide 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.
- Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. v. CIT108 citing26 ITR 151 · 1954 · HC
- CIT v. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd.48 citing91 ITR 170 · 1973 · HC
- 1. CIT v. Dhoomketu Builders & Development (P.) Ltd.25 citing34 Taxmann.com 18 · 2013 · HC
- CIT v. Sponge Iron India Ltd.10 citing201 ITR 770 · 1993 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH
PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :
These are Revenue appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad, dated 29-06-2016 & 25-01-2017 for the AYs. 2007-08 and 2006-07 respectively on the issue whether assessee’s claim of loss in the impugned years is allowable, as Revenue contends that the business has not commenced.
Briefly stated, assessee-company filed its return of income for the AY.2007-08 declaring loss of Rs. 8,42,21,637/-. The assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act [Act] on the reason that assessee has not commenced
:- 2 -: M/s. Karvy Global Services Limited
commercial operations during the year under consideration and
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.
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 3
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad vs ITO-1(1), AllahabadITA 211/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad vs ITO- 1(1), AllahabadITA 210/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad vs ITO-1(1), AllahabadITA 209/ALLD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026