← All Phrases

“Section 72(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 72Section 72(1)32 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 72(1) is CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (72 ITR 194), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 72(1)

CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad
72 ITR 194 · 1969 · Supreme Court
272
citing judgments

If there is an unexplained cash credit, the Assessing Officer can treat it as the assessee's income, even when the income is finalized on an estimation basis, without proving its specific source. The onus then shifts to the assessee to prove that the income represented by the cash credit has already been taxed.

Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT
72 ITR 291 · 1969 · Supreme Court
81
citing judgments

Income cannot be taxed twice unless expressly provided by law. Income accrued in a particular year must be included in that year's total income and cannot be ignored to be taxed in a subsequent year based on receipt.

Kailash Moudgil v. DCIT
72 ITD 97 · 2000 · ITAT
79
citing judgments

A mere irregularity in granting approval under Section 158BG of the Income-tax Act does not render the resulting assessment order invalid or fatal.

CIT v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.
72 Taxmann.com 325 · 2016 · High Court
59
citing judgments

Profits of an industrial undertaking eligible for deduction under sections 80-I, 80IB, or 80IC are computed without allocating common corporate or head office expenses that lack a direct nexus to the unit's industrial activity.

DCIT v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.
72 Taxmann.com 116 · 2016 · ITAT
53
citing judgments

A provision made for Unclaimed Prior Revenue (UPR) is not an item to be added back to book profit under Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Evolv Clothing Company Private Limited v. ACIT
407 ITR 72 · 2018 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Payments for market surveys conducted for the purpose of procuring orders on a commission basis are not fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they are incidental to the business activity and do not involve the 'make available' clause.

CIT v. B.M. Kharwar
72 ITR 603 · 1969 · Supreme Court
27
citing judgments

Taxing authorities must respect the legal character of a transaction, even if it appears to be a device to reduce tax, unless the transaction is a sham or conceals the true legal relationship.

370 ITR 720 (Allahabad) 9. Star Chemical (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
12 Taxmann.com 496 · 2011 · High Court
21
citing judgments

When lending money is not the business of a company, loans or advances given to an assessee-shareholder are treated as deemed dividends under section 2(22)(e) of the Income-tax Act. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) apply to a company that has taken a loan from its subsidiary.

Judgments citing Section 72(1)

Aban Offshore Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Intl, Tax 1(1), Chennai

ITA 1240/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T.Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1240/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Aban Offshore Limited, 113, Janpriya Crest, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008. Pan: Aaaca 3012H (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs. International Taxation 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) : Ms. R. Anita, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R Der Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16, Dated 13.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Fact That The Order Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 13.03.2024 Is Erroneous Both On Facts & In Law To The Extent The Order Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant :-2-:

Section 115ASection 195(2)Section 250Section 44BSection 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Meenakshi Energy and Infrastructure Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 291/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.291/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Meenakshi Energy & Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Infrastructure Holdings (P) Circle 5 (1) Ltd, Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aafcm6917L (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Advocate Shri A.V. Raghuram रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(Cit)Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/05/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 27/06/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Advocate Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghanath Chowhan,(CIT)DR
Section 72(1)

interest income has been rightly assessed under the head business income and also brought forward losses has been rightly claimed in terms of section 72(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Page 3 of 13 ITA No 291 of 2024 Meenakshi Energy and Infrastructure Holdings P Ltd 4. The Assessing ... under the head “income from other sources”. The Assessing Officer had also denied the set of brought forward business losses in terms of section 72(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the ground that brought forward business losses can be set off against business income only. 5. Being aggrieved