← All Phrases

“Section 71(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 71Section 71(1)8 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 71(1) is Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT (247 ITR 290), cited in 136 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 71(1)

Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT
247 ITR 290 · 2001 · High Court
136
citing judgments

Income deemed under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, or 69C of the Income-tax Act is a distinct category, separate from regular heads of income under Section 14, and losses from other heads, including business losses, cannot be set off against such deemed income.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
34 ITR 368 · 1958 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

CIT v. Mythreyi Pai
152 ITR 247 · 1985 · High Court
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred towards the purchase of shares is a capital expenditure and therefore, interest expenditure incurred on such purchases is not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act.

CIT v. Upasana
225 ITR 845 · 1997 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a holding company for making investments in a subsidiary can be treated as business expenditure and is not disallowable, as such investment activity can itself constitute a business.

Jagdish Kumar Gulati v. CIT
269 ITR 71 · 2004 · High Court
39
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer (AO) is expected to conduct a detailed inquiry during assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) and should not accept the assessee's claims at face value. A failure to investigate glaring issues amounts to a lack of proper inquiry.

422 ITR 71 (Bom) Pr. CIT v. JSW Steel Ltd.
280 CTR 216 · 2015 · High Court
31
citing judgments

A return of income filed in response to a notice under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act is to be considered as a return filed under Section 139 of the Act for all other provisions, including the purpose of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

Bimla Singh v. CIT
308 ITR 71 · 2009 · High Court
27
citing judgments

A difference between the registered value of a property and the assessee's declared value, if within a 10% tolerance limit, does not warrant an addition to income. Decisions rely on this case to argue that minor valuation discrepancies should not lead to additions.

Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO
73 ITD 189 · 2000 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the transfer of the use of licenses, without acquiring ownership rights or an enduring benefit, constitutes revenue expenditure. Such payments are allowable as a deduction if they are directly relatable to services in the revenue field.

Judgments citing Section 71(1)

Kamal Kant, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-54(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3594/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Kamal Kant Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward K-15 South Extension –One 54(1) Civic Centre Delhi New Delhi 110049 Pan No. Aaipk 1374K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 234ASection 43(5)(d)Section 70Section 70aSection 71(2)

against salary income. Section 71(2A) has a non-obstante clause and creates a bar not withstanding what is contained in Section 71(1) and 72(2) of the Act. The assesse has incurred losses in F&O trading in derivatives which is assessable as non-speculative business loss under

Horizon Dream Homes Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly

ITA 5934/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 14Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 68

gains from Business or Profession amounting to Rs.55,45,600 including depreciation of Rs.392810 against income from other sources as provided in Section 71(1). Please note that the provisions of Section 115BBE are not applicable for the Asst. Year 2011-12. We kindly request your good self to allow ... income brought to tax under the head “income from other sources”. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the provisions of section 71(1) which allows set-off of loss under one head against the income under another head of income during the financial year relevant to the assessment

Vigen Healthy Tech India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6669/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi09 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Anubhav Sharmaasstt. Year: 2016-17 Vigen Healthy Tech India P Ltd., Vs The Acit, Circle -26(2), Plot No. 16-17, Near Bramha New Delhi Apartment, Sector 7, Dwarka, New Delhi 110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcv 0003 A Assessee By : Sh. Abhijeet, Adv. Revenue By : Sh.Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.02.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Abhijeet, AdvFor Respondent: Sh.Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 37

total sales revenue or the said amount of alleged unexplained cash of Rs. 4,42,358/- ought to have been set off under Section 71(1) of the Income Tax Act against the net business loss of the appellant, however, the respondent as also the assessing officer chose

Measeg Saraf Electricals Private Limited, Rampura Phul vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 286/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43(5)

Therefore, the business loss incurred by the appellant is eligible for set off against other income in terms of the provisions of section 71(1) of the Act.” The transaction related high sea sales is normal business transaction and not the speculative in nature. The issue is covered

Millennium Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 653/ASR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar13 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 14Section 14ASection 56Section 69Section 69ASection 71

shall constitute income under the head 'Other Sources'. The AR further argued that as per the provisions of Section 71(1) the inter head income/loss of the same year are allowed to be set off against each other. AO has not allowed the set off in view

DCIT-3(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Idbi Bank Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2937/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit- 3(4) V. M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd 29Th Floor, Center-1 Central Processing Unit (Tds) World Trade Center, Cuffe Parade Plot No. 82/83, Elemach Bldg Mumbai- 400005 Road No. 7, Street No. 15 Midc, Andheri (E) Mumbai- 400093 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Idbi Bank Ltd V. Acit/Dcit-Ltu 22Nd Floor, Idbi Tower 29Th Floor, Centre No. 1 Wtc Complex, Cuffe Parade World Trade Centre, Cuffe Parade Mumbai- 400005 Mumbai- 400005 Pan: Aabci8842G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 14ASection 18

assessee-bank claimed a set-off under section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (section 71(1) of the present Act), against its income from interest on securities under section 8 of the 1922 Act (similar to section 18 of the present Act). It was held that

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Bathinda vs. M/S Apex Fibre India Limited, Bathinda

ITA 84/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

eligible for set off against other income in terms of the provisions of G.H. Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Ors section 71(1) of the Act. Rebuttal of the assessee The CIT(A) has held the transactions of edible oil by the assessee during high seasasnon-speculative ... Therefore, the business loss incurred by the appellant is eligible for set off against other income in terms of the provisions of section 71(1) of the Act. 14.3 Considering the factual matrix and Judicial analysis of law, we find no infirmity or perversity in the finding

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda vs. M/S G.H. Crop Science Private Limited, Bathinda

ITA 56/ASR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar23 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 43(5)Section 45(3)

eligible for set off against other income in terms of the provisions of G.H. Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT & Ors section 71(1) of the Act. Rebuttal of the assessee The CIT(A) has held the transactions of edible oil by the assessee during high seasasnon-speculative ... Therefore, the business loss incurred by the appellant is eligible for set off against other income in terms of the provisions of section 71(1) of the Act. 14.3 Considering the factual matrix and Judicial analysis of law, we find no infirmity or perversity in the finding