← All Phrases

“Section 74(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 74Section 74(1)20 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 74(1) is Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (392 ITR 74), cited in 762 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 74(1)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

DCIT v. Panna Corporation
74 DTR 89 · 2012 · High Court
67
citing judgments

When unaccounted cash or on-money receipts are detected, only the profit element embedded in such receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount, and this profit requires estimation.

ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor
60 ITR 74 · 1966 · Supreme Court
60
citing judgments

Income must be charged only once, preventing double taxation. If income is mistakenly assessed in the hands of individual members instead of the Association of Persons or Hindu Undivided Family, or vice versa, the Income Tax Officer must make appropriate adjustments for the tax already realized.

CIT v. Amit Jain
351 ITR 74 · 2013 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Where an assessee offers additional income during a survey action under section 133A and declares it in the return, and no other source of income is established, a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income may not be leviable.

CIT v. Bombay Samachar Ltd.
74 ITR 723 · 1969 · High Court
51
citing judgments

When an assessee has mixed funds from both own sources and borrowings in a cash credit account, the debit balance is presumed to have been met from the company's own funds. This principle is applied to assess the allowability of interest deduction under Section 36(1)(iii) for capital borrowed for business purposes.

DCIT v. Gloster Jute Mills Limited
88 Taxmann.com 738 · 2017 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) can be claimed in the year an asset is acquired and installed, even if it is claimed in a subsequent year of acquisition and installation.

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.

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC)
74 ITR 836 · 1969 · Reported
24
citing judgments

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

Judgments citing Section 74(1)

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai vs. S.S. Jewellery, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4652/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 74(1)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

DCIT, Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai, Mumai vs. Divesh Prakashchand Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4651/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 74(1)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

S S Jewellery, Zaveri Bajar, Mumbai vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-3(2), Mumbai, Air India Building, Nariman Point

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4542/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT, D/R
Section 74(1)

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Taxation)1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2766/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT

Asia Investment Corporation (Mauritius ) Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for both the years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 2765/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)(b)Section 69Section 74

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT

Matrix Partners India Investment Holdings, Llc, Mauritius vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3097/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 115JSection 13(3)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 270ASection 274

capital gains are to be examined from the vantage point of a complete "A.Y." (section 45) and on an aggregative "net" basis (sub-section 74(1)). 8. The case of DIT (International Taxation) v. IBM World Trade Corpn. [2020] 120 taxmann.com 151 (Kar.) IBM World Trade Corpn. v. DDIT (International ... carry forward the loss only after set off from the capital gains earned if any. He placed reliance on the provisions of section 74(1) to submit that the tax treatment adopted in respect of Capital gains and loss from transfer of Indian securities must be adopted. He thus placed

Tvf Fund Ltd., Mauritius, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S (ACCOUNTANT

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

part of the "total and therefore the "capital losses" will also not form part of the "total income" of the assessee. Applicability of section 74(1)will require (i income" of the assessee. Applicability of section 74(1)will require (i income" of the assessee. Applicability of section 74(1 ... tenable. As discussed in the preceding years as per IT Act is not tenable. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, section 74(1) will not be applicable to the assessee as the aph, section 74(1) will not be applicable to the assessee as the aph, section 74(1) will

Russel Credit Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 407/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Sanjay Awasthiassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: J.P. Khaitan, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Abhijit Kundu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

capital loss cannot be set off against any income other than the income from long term capital gain as per the provisions of section 74(1)(b), it appears that the impugned Instruction of CBDT does not come to the aid of the assessee in any manner.” 5.1 This issue

Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dy CIT Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for

ITA 3063/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dy CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints, Mumbai

ITA 2936/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 2, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2700/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2697/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 2696/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia, Mumbai vs. ITO (International Taxation) Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4139/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer Sukhpal Singh Ahluwalia (International Tax) Ward 6/24, Milan Building, 1(1)(1), 87, Tardeo Road, Room No.1817A, 18 Th Vs. Opp. Tardeo A C Market, Floor, Air India Building, Mumbai-400 034 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Azupa6884D Assessee By : Shri Rashmikant C. Modi & Ms. Ketki Rajeshirke, Ars Revenue By : Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2024 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Sash, DR
Section 112Section 115CSection 143Section 144C(5)Section 254Section 45Section 48Section 74

carried forward and set off against long term capital gain in the later assessment year in terms of the provisions of section 74(1)(b) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee had relied on several judicial pronouncements before us but those decisions did not deal with

Heidelberg Cement India Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- 2, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaheidelberg Cement India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Infinity Circle-2, Towers, Dlf, Cybercity, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabcm2359J

For Appellant: Shri Harpreet Singh Ajmani, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 71Section 74

Circular No. 587 dated 11.12.1990 apparently deals with regard to the inter head adjustments to be made. Pursuant to the amendment brought in section 74(1)(b) w.e.f 01.04.2003, the brought forward LTCL could be set off only with LTCG and thus to this extent, no inter head adjustment ... rider “subject to the provision of this chapter” would become redundant and otiose. Hence, a conjoint reading of section 71(2) with section 74(1) is required to be done and once it is read harmoniously, the assessee‟s claim in the instant case deserves to be accepted, though

Indium IV (Mauritius) Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2423/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleindium Iv (Mauritius) Holdings Limited V. Dcit (International Transaction)-2(2)(1) Office 201, 2Nd Floor, Sterling Tower Room No. 1722, 17Th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point 14 Poudriere Street, Port Louis Mumbai – 400 021 Mauritius Pan: Aacci4907P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144C(5)Section 2(24)Section 45Section 92C

taxable in India.  Net long-term capital loss (non-STT paid) of INR 143,511,469 was incurred during the year. Section 74(1) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 (Act) does not permit offsetting such long-term capital losses against short-term capital gains. Such long-term capital losses ... under consideration which are not taxable in India by virtue of Article 13(4) of India Mauritius DTAA owing to the provisions of section 74(1) of the Act. 9. In light of the above, it is humbly submitted that: The denial of carry forward of forward of long-term

Dy CIT (International Taxation)-1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bluebay Mauritus Investment Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1370/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 66Section 74(1)Section 80Section 90(2)

taking a view that the computation of total income has to be solely determined as per the provisions of the Act as per section 74(1) and not on treaty. Wherein loss is to be ascertained to be carried forwarded the subsequent assessment year on the base of net result

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

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the learned Assessing

ITA 122/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Jasbir Chouhan, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153A

ground of appeal raised by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 74(1)(a) of the Act, which allows set off of loss related to short term capital asset brought forward to be set off of capital gain earned in respect