CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan

129 ITR 115High Court1981#9354 most cited

What is CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan authority for?

Loss from a source of income that is entirely exempt from tax cannot be set off against income from a different source or under a different head. This principle applies even if the loss is incurred on assets like shares that would otherwise attract capital gains tax.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan · 129 ITR 115 · Madras High Court · set off of loss · exempt income · capital loss · different source of income · capital gains

Judgments citing CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan

Hcl Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5465/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…ignored and cannot be allowed to be carried forwards separately or in conjunction with any other loss, since the said loss is not a loss determined under the head profits and gains from business or profession In Commissioner of Income-tax. Madrass Dhagarajan, 129 ITR 115 Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the provisions of section 70 and 71 relating to set off of loss from one head against income from another contemplate loss from a source, the income from which is liable to tax. If income from a source is altogether exempt from tax, loss from that source cannot be set off against income from different sourc…

Hcl Technologies Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 5624/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 10ASection 143Section 144Section 144C(13)

…ignored and cannot be allowed to be carried forwards separately or in conjunction with any other loss, since the said loss is not a loss determined under the head profits and gains from business or profession In Commissioner of Income-tax. Madrass Dhagarajan, 129 ITR 115 Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that the provisions of section 70 and 71 relating to set off of loss from one head against income from another contemplate loss from a source, the income from which is liable to tax. If income from a source is altogether exempt from tax, loss from that source cannot be set off against income from different sourc…

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)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Nikhil Sawhney, Vs. DCIT, 17, Sunder Nagar, Central Circle, New Delhi-11003 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAUPS0222Q Assessee by : Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Ms. Somya Jain, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 06/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 10/10/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.1249/Del/2017 for AY 2013-14, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Noida [hereinafter referred to…

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

…ital loss of Rs. 1,44,73,463 can be disallowed on the basis of the decisions of the horible apex court in the case of CIT v. Harprasad and Co. P. Ltd. [1975] 74 | P a g e 99 ITR 118 (SC) and the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan[1981] 129 ITR 115 (Mad.), especially when neither the facts nor the provisions of law discussed in the said decisions are comparable to the facts of the appellant's case and the provisions of law applicable to the appellant's case ? C. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in invoking the provisions of secti…

Netesoft India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 5359/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5359/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2013-14) Netesoft India Limited Dcit-Central Circle-10(3)(1) 602, Maker Bhavan-Iii बनाम/ Room No.212, Aaykar Bhavan New Marin Lines Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-9543-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/12/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (): - 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [Ay] 2013-14 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-17/It-480/15- 16 Dated 02/05/2017 On Following Sole Ground Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 70

…s incurred in present facts of the _ case is same as that referred to in the provisions of section 10(38) and it is only a matter of a negative income rather than positive income for which no different treatment can be given. In CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan [1981] 129 ITR 115, the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that if Income from a source was "altogether exempt from tax, loss from that very source could not be set off against income from a different source or income under a different head. Hence, the judgement of Karamchand Premchand (supra), judgement of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in Royal Turf Club and decision of…

Rare Investments, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) - 28, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3409/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Rare Investments Vs. The Commissioner Of 151, Nariman Point Income Tax (28), Mumbai Mumbai – 400 021 R.No.114, Aaykar Bhavan Maharshi Karve Road Mumbai – 400 021 Pan/Gir No.Aahfr8059H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 70

…exempt from tax, loss from that source cannot be set off against income from a different source or income under different head. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.S. Thiagarajan reported in 129 ITR 115. With these observations, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the ld. AO. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. We find that the ld.…

The ITO, (Exemptions), Ward, Surat vs. Shree Ambika Niketan Trust, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 667/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhअपील सं./Ita No.667/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 Income Tax Officer, Shree Ambika Niketan Trust, [Exemption] Ward, Surat, H.No.13/52, Vs. Surat. C/0 Ambika Niketan Mandir, Khan Saheb Ni Wadi, Athwalines, Surat-395001. Pan Aabts2849C (Applicant) (Responent) Revenue By : Shri Prasanjit Singh, Cit,Dr : Assessee By Kruti Kothari, C.A सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/11/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh:

For Respondent: Shri Prasanjit Singh, CIT,DR
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 70

…Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal ( 1994) 119 CTR ( Guj) 114; (1995) 211 ITR 293 ( Guj) TC 23R 1228 and CIT v/s Rao Bahadur Calavala Cunnan Chetty Charities ( 1982) 135 ITR 485 (Mad) TC 23 R 965 and distinguished the decision in CIT vs S.S. Thiagarajan (1981) 129 ITR 115 (Mad) : TC 32 R 334.' 8 2.1 In the case of DIT V/s Raghuvanshi Charitable Trust ( 2011) 197 Taxman 170 ( Delhi) the High Court of Delhi held that a Trust can be allowed to carry forward deficit of current year and to set off same against income of sub sequent years A.Y.2013-2014 4 .Adjustment of deficit of current year against income of subsequen…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1234 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…decision of the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, (1991) 237 ITR 589 (SC) and also decision of the Madras High Court ![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg) in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-II v. S.S.Thiagarajan (Decd.), by LRs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1238 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…decision of the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, (1991) 237 ITR 589 (SC) and also decision of the Madras High Court ![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg) in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-II v. S.S.Thiagarajan (Decd.), by LRs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1228 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…decision of the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, (1991) 237 ITR 589 (SC) and also decision of the Madras High Court ![](_page_3_Picture_1.jpeg) in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-II v. S.S.Thiagarajan (Decd.), by LRs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd.…

The Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd

ITA - 1235 / 2009HC Delhi21 Oct 2011
Section 260A

…assessee. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Orissa State Warehousing Corporation vs. CIT, (1991) 237 ITR 589 (SC) and also decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-II v. S.S.Thiagarajan (Decd.), by LRs, (1981) 129 ITR 115. The order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is more detailed. She had examined various contentions of the assessee but rejected the same. She relied upon Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited vs. CIT, (1997) 227 ITR 172, Express Newspaper Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 1997 227 ITR 325 and CIT Vs. M/s. Paramount Premises (P) Ltd.…

CIT v. S.S. Thiagarajan (129 ITR 115) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax