How many judgments cite CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.?

78 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. (99 ITR 118), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 74, Section 90(2), Section 10(38), Section 115JB, Section 45.

CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.

99 ITR 118Supreme Court of India1975#1469 most cited

What is CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

The terms 'income' or 'profits and gains' are inclusive of losses, signifying that losses are 'minus income' to be factored into the computation of taxable income. Therefore, set-off and carry forward provisions for losses apply exclusively to taxable income or gains and cannot be pressed into service against non-taxable gains, such as those exempt under a DTAA or other specific provisions.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd. · 99 ITR 118 SC · Section 74 · Section 90(2) · Section 115JB · Profit includes loss · Set-off and carry forward of losses · Taxable income only · Non-taxable gains · DTAA exemption · Capital gains loss · Book profit computation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 74 Section 90(2)Section 10(38)Section 115JB Section 45 Section 13 Section 13(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 74 section 4(3)section 4(1)section 71 section 47 section 70 carry forward of losses section 127(2)transfer of capital asset section 2(14)trc section 90(2)

Judgments citing CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.

GOLDMAN SACHS MAURITIUS NBFC LLC,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5926/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2023-24 Goldman Sachs Mauritius Nbfc Assistant Commissioner Of Llc, Income Tax – (International C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Taxation)-2(3)(2), Floor, The Ruby, 29 Senapati Room No.610, 6Th Floor Vs. Bapat Marg, Dadar West, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Mumbai-400028 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (Pan: Aaecg8689C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Hiten Thakkar, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Act Dated 14.07.2025, Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel – 1, Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2025-26/1077165542(1), Dated 18.06.2025 Passed U/S. 144C(5) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), For Ay 2023-24. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Shri Hiten Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 270ASection 5Section 74

…lant's group companies viz. Goldman Sachs Investments (Mauritius) Limited [ITA No. 2201/Mum/2017] and Goldman Sachs India Investments (Singapore) PTE Limited [TS-294-ITAT-2021(Mum)) and relying on the rulings in the case of CIT vs Hariprasad & Co Pvt Limited [99 ITR 118 (SC), 1975 CTR 65 (SC)) Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani Vs. ACIT [Tax Appeal No. 440 of 2013], which are clearly distinguishable on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income for the AY 2023-24. 2.1 All the grounds…

G S STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT INTERNATIONAL TAX CIRCLE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5644/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 112Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 74

…for gains cannot retrospectively re-characterise or extinguish the already quantified losses, nor can it justify a forced set-off against non-chargeable gains in the treaty year. 22. The reliance placed by the Assessing Officer on Harprasad & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [99 ITR 118 (SC)] is, in fact, of no assistance to the Revenue; on the contrary, the underlying proposition supports the assessee‟s case. The Supreme Court, while dealing with the scheme of capital gains, explained that set-off and carry forward provisions operate within the domain of taxable income and cannot be pressed into service to adjust against gains t…

MR. NIKHIL SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarmr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. Dcit, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaups0222Q

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…ibition on transfer of shares. d) The issue is covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Karamchand Premchand Ltd. reported in 40 ITR 106(SC) , which has been followed and applied in CIT vs Hariprasad and Co. Pvt Ltd. reported in 99 ITR 118(SC). The issue is also covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Royal Calcutta Turf Club vs CIT reported in 144 ITR 709 (Cal) and decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Raptakos Brett and Co Ltd. vs DCIT reported in 69 SOT 383 (Mum Trib). Mr. Nikhil Sawhney e) When two conflicting views are possible on a particula…

SHAKUNTALA SADANAND SHET LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SADANAND SHESHGIRI SHET,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22 3 6 MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 3616/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 263

…book profit. It would be completely illogical to hold that only the positive share of income\nwould be reduced while the share of negative income would be ignored while computing the book\nprofit.\n8. 3. In the case CIT (Central) vs Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd [99 ITR 118 (SC)), 3 judge bench of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court has held that profit includes losses, it is discernible that the words income'\nor 'Profits and gains' should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one, sense profits\nand gains' represent 'plus income' whereas losses represent 'minus income (1). In other words,\nloss is negative pro…

BIRLA GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT), CIRCLE 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 2494/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeethe Birla Group Holding Vs Acit, Circle 2(1), Ujjain Private Limited, (As A Aaykar Bhavan, 127, Dewas Road, Successor To Turquoise Bharatpuri, Ujjain, Madhya Investments & Finance Pvt Pradesh, 456010. Ltd) Industry House, 1St Floor, 159, Churchgate Reclamation, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aaacr2250C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi & Pranav ZanwarFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 234CSection 250Section 263

…o the book profit. It would be completely illogical to hold that only the positive share of income would be reduced while the share of negative income would be ignored while computing the book profit. 8.3. In the case CIT (Central) vs Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd [99 ITR 118 (SC)), 3 judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that profit includes losses, it is discernible that the words income' or 'Profits and gains' should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one, sense profits and gains' represent 'plus income' whereas losses represent 'minus income (1). In other words, loss is negative profit.…

DCIT (IT) -3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JP MORGAN INDIA SMALLER COMPANIES FUND, MUMBAI

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 250Section 90(2)

…t the AO had considered these decisions cited by the appellant during the assessment proceedings, yet not 4 Assessment Year 2016-2017 accepted the findings contained therein by referring to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harprasad & Co. (99 ITR 118 (SC)) and other decisions including Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT decision in the case of Dresdner Bank referred above. However, in the above quoted submissions, the appellant has distinguished the facts of its case with the decision cited by the AO. These claims of the appellant are found to be correct, and it is noted that the decisions cited by the AO ar…

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAXATION)1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

…cannot revert back to the provisions of the IT Act, 1961 only for the loss incurring capital gain transactions. 4.3.8 Reliance is placed on the ratio(s) laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Hariprasad& Co Pvt Limited [99 ITR 118 (SC), 1975 CTR 65(SC)]. Again in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani Vs ACIT in ITA No 440 of 2013, even the Hon'ble Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, has held that the loss from exempt source can neither be allowed as set off nor can be allowed to be carried forward and absorbed against income in subsequent years from the taxable source. 4.3.9 T…

ASIA INVESTMENT CORPORATION (MAURITIUS ) LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INT TAX)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2765/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

DCIT (IT) - 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO INSTITUTIONEEL EMERGING MARKETS FONDS , MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4059/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Institutioneel Emerging Markets 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Fonds, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, C/O Ernst & Young Llp, 14Th Floor, Mumbai-400051. The Ruby, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aacts 7682 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dcit (It)-4(1)(1), Robeco Q1 Institutional Emerging 625, Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Markets Enhanced Index Equities Fund, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, 14Th Floor, The Rc/O Ernst & Young Mumbai-400051. Llp, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aabtr 2305 L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: None

Section 74

…self is exempted from taxation in the source country, then as per decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Harprasad& Co. Pvt then as per decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Harprasad& Co. Pvt then as per decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Harprasad& Co. Pvt Ltd (1975) 99 ITR 118, losses (or capital gains) should be given Ltd (1975) 99 ITR 118, losses (or capital gains) should be given Ltd (1975) 99 ITR 118, losses (or capital gains) should be given similar treatment (treated as exempt) & s similar treatment (treated as exempt) & should not be allowed to be hould not be allowed to be carried forward. carried forward. 3. We…

DCIT (IT) 4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ROBECO QI INSTITUTIONAL EMERGING MARKETS ENHANCED INDEX EQUITIES FUND, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4058/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: None

Section 74

MORGAN STANLEY MAURITIUS COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

…epresentative (DR) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (Supreme Court) CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (Supreme Court) CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (Supreme Court) Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd. Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd. 11 and submitted that exempt source o and submitted that exempt source of loss does not enter f loss does not enter into r…

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1213/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…ourt correctly answered the question of law referred to it. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED BY US) 8. The ld DR vehemently relied on the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd reported in 99 ITR 118(SC) wherein the question raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was as under:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the capital loss of Rs. 28,662 could be determined and carried forward in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act 1922, when the provisions of section 12B of the Income-tax…

MR. TARUN SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1212/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

N. K. PROTEINS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 313/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Choksi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, CIT-D.R

Section 115JSection 14ASection 250

…a Prasad Moody (2002-TIOL-751- S&115 ITR 519 (SC) has held that even if there was no income, the expenditure is allowable. It is now well settled that income includes loss also as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Harprasad & Co. P Ltd. 99 ITR 118 (SC). As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Walfort (supra) that only the net of the income is taxable i.e. gross income minus expenditure and as discussed above the net income may be a loss also. Since the earning of positive net income is not a condition precedent for claiming deduction of expenditure, on the same analogy, the earn…

RITA GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CEN. CIR.2(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 2(14)Section 45Section 45(1)Section 47

…sale of equity shares with STT paid cannot be allowed to be set off against the taxable long term capital gain resulting from sale of any other asset. The Ld. CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal relied on the series of decision namely Harprasad& Co. Pvt. Ltd. [99 ITR 118], CIT vs. J. H Gotla [156 ITR 323], CIT vs. Coin health Food Pvt. Ltd. [304 ITR 308] , decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani vs. ACIT [367 ITR 261], decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Nikhil Sawhney vs. ACIT [119 taxmann.com 372], decision of Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of DDIT (Internat…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJALPUR vs. DIGITAL BIOTECH PVT. LTD., MEMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1058/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs A/9, Yashprabha Apartment, Ward-1(1)(3), Behind Janta Ice Cream, Ahmedabad Gurukul Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad -380052 Pan : Aaccd 1831 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and further stated that in many judicial pronouncements it has been held that income includes loss. Ld. DR placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements:- i. Hon'ble SC in the case of CIT(Central) Delhi v/s. Hariprasad and company (P) Ltd., (1975) 99 ITR 118; ii. Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs Gold Coin Health Food Private Limited, [2008] 304 ITR 308; iii. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Gotla, [1985] 156 ITR 323. 8. The Ld. DR submitted that if the addition is deleted, assessee would get the benefit of carrying forward of this loss in subsequent years and will set it off against its…

SHIVAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 317/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 317/Ahd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shivam Builders Private Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Limited Income Tax Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, Rajvi Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Arcade, Nr. Gurukul Drive In Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs0296D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Hem Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/04/2024 09/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)

…definition of income in Section 2(24) of the Act is an inclusive definition and it is a settled principle that under the provision of Income Tax Act, income includes loss. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held in the case of CIT v. Harprasad & Co. P. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) that the words ‘income’ or ‘profits and gains’, should be understood as including losses also. To reproduce from the order: From the charging provisions of the Act, it is discernible that the words "income" or "profits and gains" should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one sense "profits and gains" represent "plus income"…

INDIUM IV (MAURITIUS) HOLDINGS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2423/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 45Section 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indium IV (Mauritius) Holdings Limited v. DCIT (International transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius PAN: AACCI4907P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anish Thacker & Assessee Represented by : Shri Pranay Gandhi Department Represented by : Shri Pankaj Mehta Date of conclusion of Hearing : 08.09.2023 Date of Pronounce…

M/S WF ASIAN SMALLER COMPANIES FUND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE 4(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr

Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

…empt then loss will also not be taken into computation of the income, and such an argument is with reference to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hariprasad & Company 28 A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. WF Asian Smaller Companies Pvt. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, opined that, if loss was from the source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income tax, neither the assessee was required to show the same in the return nor was the Assessing Officer under any obligation to compute or assess it much less for the purpose of carry forward. Further, the Hon’ble…

JITE SHIPYARD LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13(2), NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 6631/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 6424/Del/2018, A.Y. 2015-16

Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

…Further, in P.R. Basavappa & Sons v. CIT; (2000) 243 ITR 776 (Kar), the Hon’ble High Court pointed out that it has always been understood that income includes loss, as held in CIT 6424 & 6631.Del.2018 JITE Shipyard Ltd. v. Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC). So that reduction in loss by way of positive adjustments, i.e amount to be added back if debited to Profit and Loss Account, like in case in hand, disallowance u/s14A of the Act is made, then word ‘net profit’ as shown in the profit & loss account for the relevant previous year would include the ‘loss’ shown in the return. Thus, there is no…

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4