← All Phrases

“Section 59(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 59Section 59(2)51 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 59(2) is CIT v. Manmohan Das (59 ITR 699), cited in 47 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 59(2)

CIT v. Manmohan Das
59 ITR 699 · 1966 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The eligibility for an assessee to carry forward and set off losses, including capital losses, against future income is determined by the Assessing Officer in the year the set-off is claimed, not in the year the loss was incurred.

CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff
48 ITR 59 · 1963 · Supreme Court
40
citing judgments

Assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void. Once an assessee dies, assessment proceedings can only continue in the name of their legal representative, to the extent of the deceased's estate.

CIT v. Jaipuria China Clay Mines (P.) Ltd.
59 ITR 555 · 1966 · Supreme Court
24
citing judgments

Section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, deals with the carry forward of business losses and does not encompass the carry forward of depreciation, which is provided for under Section 32(2).

Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit v. Income Tax Officer
138 Taxmann.com 476 · 2022 · ITAT
24
citing judgments

Interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks and nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) of the Income Tax Act. Such interest is considered attributable to the business of the cooperative society, especially when deposits are statutorily required.

CIT v. Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited
258 ITR 594 · 2002 · High Court
13
citing judgments

Interest earned by a cooperative society on fixed deposits with a bank or co-operative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) if it is directly linked to and attributable to the society's primary activity of marketing agricultural produce grown by its members.

CIT vs. Krishak Sahkari Ganna Samiti Limited 258 ITR 594 (Alld)and CIT v. Cooperative Cane Development Union Limited
118 ITR 770 · 1979 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Interest earned by co-operative societies on fixed deposits with banks and other co-operative societies is includible in their total income, unless it falls within the specific exemptions provided by Section 80P(2) of the Income Tax Act.

1. CIT v. Saurashtra Cement 2. S.Zoraster & Co. v. CIT (322 ITR 59) 3. CIT v. Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation(
259 ITR 116 · 2003 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Compensation received for the cancellation of a distribution agreement, which leads to the impairment of the profit-making apparatus and sterilization of the source of income, is considered a capital receipt and exempt from tax.

Bangalore in ACIT v. K. Mohan & Co.(Exports) P Ltd.
126 ITD 59 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

Profits derived from forward contracts entered into to avoid the risk of loss due to foreign exchange fluctuation are to be assessed as speculative profit and are not considered part of export turnover eligible for deduction under Section 10B, especially when the contracts are not isolated transactions.

Judgments citing Section 59(2)

Janseva Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT-17, Mumbai

ITA 1225/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhjanseva Co-Operative Vs. Pcit-17 Credit Society Limited Room No. 120, 1 St Floor, 408, Maker Bhavan No. 3, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To 21, New Marine Lines, C-43, G Block, Bandra Mumbai – 400 020 Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaaaj7811P Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Tanzil Padvekar Respondent By : Ankush Kapoor Date Of Hearing 25.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pcit-17, Mumbai, Dated 30.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Erred In Passing The Impugned Order Under Section 263 Of The Act By Invoking Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Jurisdiction. Hence, The Impugned Order Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Bad In Law & Without Meeting Jurisdictional Requirement As Twin Mandatory Conditions Are Not Fulfilled For Invoking Power Under Section 263 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-17 Has Erred In Relying On The Decision Of The Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Totgars Co-Operative Sale Society V/S. Income Tax

For Appellant: Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Ankush Kapoor
Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 8o

Further, unlike the facts in Citizen Cooperative Society Ltd.(supra), the Kerala Act expressly permits loans to non-members under section 59(2) and (3), which reads as follows: P a g e | 9 Janseva Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. VS. PCIT-17 “59. Restrictions on loans.- (1) A society shall