← All Phrases

“Section 72(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 72Section 72(2)14 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 72(2) is CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (72 ITR 194), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 72(2)

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.

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.

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).

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.

CIT (2016)(72 Taxmann.com 64)(Gujarat) 3. Sri Basaveshwara Credit Co-operative Society Ltd. v. CIT
47 Taxmann.com 189 · 2014 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Income earned by a co-operative society on deposits made with banks is not considered attributable to its credit facilities business and therefore falls outside the scope of deduction under Section 80P.

CIT(A) v. Haryana Hotels Ltd.
276 ITR 521 · 2005 · High Court
11
citing judgments

An assessee is not legally required to file a return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation.

Zandu Pharmaceuticals Work Ltd. v. CIT
31 Taxmann.com 191 · 2013 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Common corporate expenses should not be allocated when computing the profit of an SEZ unit, if the expenses were not incurred for that specific unit.

Judgments citing Section 72(2)

East Delhi Waste Processing Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 7(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3463/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganesheast Delhi Waste Processing Vs. Dcit, Company Pvt. Ltd, Circle-7(1), 221, Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi Phase-Iii, Okhla Industrial Estate, South Delhi, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco7539D

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Rawal, CIT DR
Section 154Section 241(2)Section 242(2)Section 79

unabsorbed portion thereon to be carried forward to subsequent years. A combined reading of provisions of Section 32(2) of the Act and Section 72(2) of the Act make it very clear that first brought forward business losses would have to be adjusted with the business income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Fiat India Automobiles Private Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1098/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

crore was not to be adjusted against BFL on the alleged ground that the same was not in line with the provisions of section 72(2) of the Act.  In this connection, the assessee humbly submits that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code in itself and other

M/S. Fiat India Automobiles Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

crore was not to be adjusted against BFL on the alleged ground that the same was not in line with the provisions of section 72(2) of the Act.  In this connection, the assessee humbly submits that section 115JB of the Act is a complete code in itself and other

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2458/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 32(1)

However, the Act thus makes a distinction between the unabsorbed allowance of depreciation and other losses. It has already been seen that section 72(2) of the Act provides that where any allowance or part thereof is, under sub-section (2) of section 32 or sub-section (4) of section ... carried forward; effect shall first be given to the provisions of section 72. In other words, section 72(2) contemplates the loss other than the unabsorbed depreciation being given a priority in the matter of set-off, as there is a time-limit within which such loss can be adjusted

Shahul Hameed, Mananthavady vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kalpetta

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 355/COCH/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Mar 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR
Section 115Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 69

stood unamended. The amendment declining set off was introduced only with effect from 1.4.2017. Therefore, question whether set off permissible under section 72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration

Suvino Televideo, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 2099/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(1)Section 72(2)

2) shows that if an assessee has unabsorbed depreciation u/s.32(2) as well as unabsorbed business loss carried forward u/s.72(1), Section 72(2) provides that the unabsorbed losses shall have precedence and to be set off first, so far as the sufficiency of the income ... against permits. Further, it is stated that Section 72(2) contemplates that if there is some unabsorbed loss carried forward to set off and there is also some unabsorbed depreciation allowance carried forward to be set off, the former shall get priority. It is further asserted by the assessee before

Chandrashekar Hemanth, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(2)(4) Bangalore, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1677/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar E, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69ASection 80

gains chargeable to tax under Chapter IV-D being less than depreciation allowance u/s 32(1), than, inter- alia, subject to provisions of Section 72(2), the unabsorbed depreciation of the current previous year shall be added to the depreciation allowable u/s 32(1) of the succeeding previous year

M/S. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd., Maharashtra vs. The ACIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 2 is partly allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 72(3)

first place, entertained applications for revival, sanctioning appropriate schemes for rehabilitation. Thus, a sanction by the BIFR implies that the requirements of Section 72(2) of the Act have been met. 17. This provision, and the interplay thereof with the provisions of the Income-tax Act has been considered

Stars Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 13/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं/Ita No. 13/Hyd/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Stars Multipurpose Vs. Deputy Commissioner Co-Operative Society Of Income Tax, Limited, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan No. Aakas6153R] अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत् यर्थी/Respondent नििााररती द्वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ar राजस् व द्वारा/Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/04/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 30/04/2024 आदेश / Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23/11/2023 Passed By The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-4, Mumbai, (“Ld. First Appellate Authority”), Relating To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co- Operative Society, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 29/10/2018 Admitting ‘Nil’ Income. The Cpc Bengaluru (“Cpc”) In The Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act,1961(“ The Act”), Dated 22/10/2019 Disallowed The Provident Fund Payment & Esi Fund Payment Of Rs. 14,56,847/- On The Reason That The Said Payments Are Not Allowable U/S. 36(1)(Va) Of The Act & Determined The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 14,56,847/- & Finally Raised A Demand Of Rs.5,59,053/-.

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 72(2)

profession’ and hence would be eligible for set off said disallowance against the brought forward business losses, as per the provisions of Section 72(2) of the Act. Hence, he requested the Bench to allow set off of the said addition made on account of PF/ESI from the brought forward

Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 999/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

stood unamended. The amendment declining set off was introduced only with effect from 1.4.2017. Therefore, question whether set off permissible under section 72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration

Alishan Steels (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1001/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. M. Roy, FCA & Shri B. K. Agarwal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

stood unamended. The amendment declining set off was introduced only with effect from 1.4.2017. Therefore, question whether set off permissible under section 72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant for consideration

DCIT, Circle-1, Kalyan vs. M/S Asb International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 1541/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandip Singh Karhaildcit, C-1,Kalyan Vs. M/S. Asb International 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Pvt. Ltd. Mayale Naar, E9, E44, Addl. Kalyan(W)- 421301 Ambernath, Industrial Area, Anand Nagar, Ambernath Thane-421506 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaaca8424F Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 65/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri. Paras SavlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Chandra
Section 10ASection 10BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

assessee of any profits and gains of business against such profits and gains of the undertaking would not arise. Similarly, as per section 72(2), unabsorbed business loss is to be first set off and thereafter unabsorbed depreciation treated as current year's depreciation under section 32(2

Cinerad Communication Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-3(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1488/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(2)Section 50Section 72

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "C" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

M/S. Khoday India Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 97/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Khoday India Ltd., The Income-Tax 7Th Mile, Brewery House, Officer, Kanakapura Road, Ward 4 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 062. Bangalore. Pan: Aaack6734C Vs. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Sridhar, Ca : Shri Ramesh B.R., Addl. Cit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 09/12/2021 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2015-16 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Bengaluru-11, Bengaluru In Ita No.Cit(A)- 11/Bng/Tr.10036/2018-19 (Din: Itba /Apl /M/ 250 /2021-22/ 1037634908(1) Dated:09.12.2021 Is Opposed To Law, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Assessing Officer Passed U/S.154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated:14.02.2018. 3. The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Not Directing The Assessing Officer To Set Off The Entire

For Appellant: Shri V. Sridhar, CA
Section 115BSection 154Section 68Section 71

amendment declining set off was introduced only with effect from 1.4.2017. Therefore, question whether set off permissible Page 9 of 11 under section 72(2) read with section 32(2) of the Act would apply with respect to the said income, assumes importance. There again, the crucial aspect relevant