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#1461 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 366,005 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.

DCIT, Circle-13(2), New Delhi vs. Jite Shipyard Ltd, New Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 6424/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…

Pc Commissioner of Income Tax - 20 vs. M/S Fish Poultry and Egg Marketing Committee

ITA - 72 / 2023HC Delhi08 Feb 2023

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2

…72/2023 Page 5 of 7 26. Without prejudice to the above, the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Harprasad & Company (P) Ltd. (99 ITR 118) has held that "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 that, in one sense 'profits and gains ' represent plus 'income' whereas losses represent 'minus income'. In other words, loss is negative profit. Both positive and negative pro…

Dy CIT (International Taxation), Mumbai vs. Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius) Ltd., Mauritius

ITA 1338/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-4(2)(2), Mumbai, Room No. 1604, 16th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 4000021 ……………… Appellant Swiss Finance Corporation (Mauritius), Vs Ltd., LES CASCADES Building, Edith Cavell Street, Port Louis, Mauritius – 999999 ……………. Respondent [PAN: AAFCS2799Q] Appearances For the Appellant/Department : Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri P.J. Pardiwala/ Shri Niraj Sheth Date of conclusi…

Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle-4, Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 380/PUN/2020[2016/17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)Section 14A

….आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ पुणे म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.380/PUN/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 PAN: AAACP 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Percy Pardiwala – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 08/07/2022 Date of pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.…

DCIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Avinash N. Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1436/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 10(38)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 250Section 45Section 47

…(A) that income includes loss and if income is exempt 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 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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Jabalpur vs. Madhya Pradesh Power Generating Co. Ltd., Jabalpur

In the result, the Revenue's appeal is dismissed as not maintainable

ITA 251/JAB/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur23 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Bardia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Halder, DR

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

…in the amended Explanation 4 as 'total income', albeit under the relevant provisions, as indeed is the case as both satisfy the test of s. 2(45) r/w s.5. Again, it cannot be lost sight of that 'income' includes 'loss' (CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P.) Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC)). Its carry forward (for being set off against the income for the subsequent year/s) — which is not lost on the tax being paid under MAT, is only on that premise and, further, as it forms part of the total income for the relevant year. It cannot but be otherwise. It is precisely for this reason that an assessment order bears the year-wise det…

Dy CIT - CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed for A

ITA 634/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 48

The Secunderbad Club, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward -10(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 166/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.Jeevanlal, DR

Section 143(3)

…inable in view of the law as explained by the hon'ble apex court over a series of decisions, viz. CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC); CIT v. J.H. Gotla [19851 156 ITR 323 (SC) and CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [19751 99 ITR 118 (SC), to cite some. We begin by reproducing/enlisting the observations by the apex court from the said decisions. :- 7 -: In CIT (Central) v. Harprasad and Co. (P.) Ltd. [19751 99 ITR 118 (SC), also relied- upon by the Assessing Officer, which decision was also in context of capital gains, and under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (pages 124, 125…

Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 166/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOs. 123 & 245/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) v. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale 8th Floor, Room No. 803 2, ABIL House M.K. Road, Churchgate Ganesh Khind Road Mumbai - 400020 Range Hill Corner Pune City, Pune Maharashtra – 411007 PAN: ABTPB8151F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 165 & 166/MUM/2021 (A.Ys: 2018-19 & 2015-16) DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) v. Amit Avinash Bhosale 8th Floor, Room No. 803 2, ABIL…

Dy. CIT CC- 2(3), Mumbai vs. Amit Avinash Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 165/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

Dy CIT CC-2(3), Mumbai vs. Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 123/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Shailja Rai

Section 10(38)Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Kolkata vs. Mcleod Russel India Ltd

Would be that the agricultural income itself would become liable

ITAT/378/2017HC Calcutta30 Nov 2021

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam A N D The Hon’Ble Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya Date: November 30, 2021. Appearance : Mr. P. K. Bhowmik, Adv. Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. … For The Appellant Mr. Asim Chaudhury, Adv. …For The Respondent The Court : This Appeal By The Revenue Filed Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Brevity) Is Against The Order Dated 8Th October, 2015 Passed By The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, Kolkata In Ita Nos. 262 & 263/Kol/2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Substantial Questions Of Law For Consideration:

Section 112Section 115WSection 260A

…of business should be disregarded. Obviously, the expenditure cannot be disregarded. The principle which must govern is well-settled and only a brief reference to authority on the subject would be necessary. 8 14. In CIT v. Harprasad & Co. (P). Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC), the question which came up before the Supreme Court was whether a capital loss could be determined and carried forward, in accordance with the provisions of section 24 of the Act of 1922, when the provisions of section 12B were not applicable during the course of assessment year 1955-56. The Supreme Court held that from the charging provisio…

Secunderabad Club, Hyderabad vs. ITO Ward-10(2), Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 153/HYD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri L. P. Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Secunderabad Club, Hyderabad. Pan Aaaat2534E …..Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Hyderabad. …..Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2021. Date Of Pronouncement : 16.11.2021. O R D E R Per Shri S.S. Godara, J.M. : This Assessee’S Appeal For Asst. Year 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Hyderabad’S Order Dt.16.02.2018 Passed In Case No.0051/2016-17/B2/Cit(A)-6 In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Paruchuri Dinesh. (D.R.)

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(vii)Section 71

…to refer to hon'ble apex court’s recent larger bench decision in Commissioner of Customs Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) that provisions of a taxing statutes have to be strictly construed only. We next quote CIT Vs. Hariprasad and Co. P. Ltd. (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) that a loss arising from a head of income not chargeable to tax is not eligible to be set off against a taxable source as follows : 5 “ It may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand in vacuo. It involves the notion of set off. Its sole purpose is to set off the loss against the profits of a subsequent year. It…

Bennett Coleman & Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result assessee appeal is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 2433/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. Bennett Coleman Vs. Acit – 1(1)(1) & Company Ltd., 5Th Floor, Aaykar The Times Of India Bhavan, Churchgate, Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant .. Respondent Dcit – 1(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Bennett Coleman 5Th Floor, Aaykar & Company Ltd., Bhavan, Churchgate, The Times Of India Mumbai – 400020. Bldg, Dn Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb4373Q Appellant/Respondent .. Respondent/Appellant Appellant/Respondent Shri Srinivasan By : Venkataraman.Ar Respondent/Appellant Shri. K.C. Selvamani. Dr By : Date Of Hearing 23.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 15.11.2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A(1)Section 23(1)

…(A) that income includes loss and if income is exempt 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 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’bl…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Exide Life Insurance Company Ltd

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/112/2020HC Karnataka31 Aug 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10Section 260Section 260ASection 44

…f the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Income-tax 10 vs. Harprasad and Company (P) Ltd., reported in (1975) 99 ITR 118 and Commissioner of Income-tax, Ahmedabad vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd., reported in (2008) 172 Taxman 386. 8. Learned counsel Sri T. Suryanarayana appearing for the assessee submitted that the first substantial question of law has been considered and answered by this Court in ITA Nos.128/2018, 181/2017 and 436/2018 (D.D.30.08.…

The Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Exide Life Insurance Co Ltd

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA/118/2020HC Karnataka31 Aug 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 10Section 260Section 260ASection 44

M/S. Appolo Tyres Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA/216/2013HC Kerala03 Aug 2021

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 70(3)

…hand deals with income under the head ‘capital gains’. The assessee under this head has two sources of income; firstly, from the sale of equity shares and units in mutual funds which are long term 1 (1982) 144 ITR 100 (Ker.) 2 (1960) 40 ITR 106 (SC) 3 (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC) 4 (2014) 367 ITR 261 (Guj.) I.T.A. No.216/2013 -10- capital assets and the sale was subjected to STT; secondly, sale of land held for more than three years and is in the nature of long term capital gain. The sources now clubbed together are distinct and separate. The first source, namely income from the sale of shares/units in mutual fu…

Panther Industrial Products Ltd., Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 2(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1080/MUM/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70Section 73Section 79

…f revenue character. Both must enter into computation, wherever it becomes material, in the same mode of the taxable income of the assessee. Reference in this context, may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Harprasad and Co. P. Ltd. [1975] 99 ITR 118. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. J.H. Gotla [1985] 156 ITR 323, in construing the word "income" in section 16(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, held that the word "income would include loss. The explanation to section 73 is produced below: "Explanation:- Where any part of the business of a company (other than a company whose gross tot…

Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1248/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishimr. Nikhil Sawhney Acit, 17 – Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. New Delhi – 110 003. Noida. Pan: Aaups0222Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143

…considered by bench in the decision of the Bombay bench in case of Raptakose Bret & co Limited ( Supra). The ld AR submitted as under :- i. During the course of hearing, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Harprasad & Co. (P) Ltd.: [1975] 99 ITR 118 (SC) was also elaborately explained. It was explained that the Court, while holding that the words ―income‖ or ―profits‖ include ―losses‖ reiterated the principle that ―if the loss is from a source or head of income not liable to tax or congenitally exempt from income-tax‖ the assessee is neither required to show the same in the return nor is the…

M/S Yokogawa India Ltd vs. The Deputy Commissioner

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/87/2012HC Karnataka04 Jun 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260Section 260A

…(1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC), 10 ‘SRI.VENKATESHWARA TOURIST HOME (P) LTD.’, (1996) 219 ITR 618 (SC), ‘SRI.VENKATESHWARA TOURIST HOME (P) LTD. V. ADIT (INVESTIGATION)’, (1998) 233 ITR 0736 (KARN.), ‘CIT VS. HARPRASAD AND CO PVT. LTD.,’, (1975) 99 ITR 118 (SC), ‘APOLLO TYRES LTD. VS. CIT’, (2002) 255 ITR 273 (SC), ‘VARGHESE (K.P) VS. ITO’, (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC), ‘CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD.,’, (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has supported the order passed by the tribunal and has invited our attention to the decision of the suprem…