← All Phrases

“Section 72(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 72Section 72(3)7 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 72(3) is CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (72 ITR 194), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 72(3)

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.

Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. v. ACIT
273 ITR 152 · 2005 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Allocation of R&D expenditure to eligible units is not clearly warranted when R&D units are maintained within manufacturing units and not as independent entities. This is particularly relevant when the Assessing Officer allocates R&D expenses to Export Oriented Units (EOUs) in the ratio of turnover, and the Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted such additions.

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.

Judgments citing Section 72(3)

Ishar Infrastructure Develpopers Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

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

ITA 686/ASR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 686/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

current business income of Rs.34,48,171/-, and determined the assessed income at Rs.34.63 lakhs u/s 143(1) ignoring the provisions of section 72(3) of the Act, where by unabsorbed business losses (other than the speculative losses) are to be carried forward for the maximum period of eight assessment ... business losses for the Asst years 2017-18 and 2020-21 , and to allow the set-of such loss as per provisions of section 72(3) of the Act , being within the eight year limitation period , if the same is genuine and legally allowable, and not to deny the same

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)

given a priority in the matter of set-off, as there is a time-limit within which such loss can be adjusted. Under section 72(3) the loss other than from depreciation is eligible for being carried forward and set-off only for a period of eight assessment year immediately

Balageria Central Co-Operative Ltd., Purba Medinipur vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), Haldia

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2320/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2320/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-2019) Balageria Central Cooperative Ltd Vs Acit, Circle-27(1), Haldia Saraswatitala, Contai, Ho, Contai Dist: Purba Medinipur, W.B. Pan No. :Aaalb 0087 A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 08/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/07/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 26.09.2024, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1069142040(1) For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ld.Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Shri Mrinmay Basak, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 20.04.2021. It Was The Submission That The Assessment Was Initiated For One Of The Grounds Being The Refund Claim, Most Specifically, Ratio Of The Refund Claimed To The Income Of The Assessee. It Was The Submission That The Said Assessment Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Act Was A Subject Matter Of Suo Moto Rectification By The Ld. Assessing Officer. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That In The Rectification Order The Assessing Officer Mentions That The Assessee Has Filed His

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mrinmay Basak, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 72(3)

reply filed to rectification u/s.154 of the Act proposed by the Assessing Officer that under the provision of Section 72(3) of the Act, the set off of the income under the head income from other sources is possible against the depreciation losses. It was the submission that the Assessing ... provided the set off 9 against the income carried forward of depreciation loss. This being so, in view of the provisions of Section 72(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the assessee benefit of set off of interest income against the carried forward depreciation loss

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

allowed to be carried forward and set off against business income of subsequent years , and the same is also regulated by Section 72(3) which sets the outer limit of eight years for being business losses to be eligible to be set off against business income of subsequent assessment years

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)

allow set off brought forward business losses against business income of the year under consideration since the same was in violation of Section 72(3) of the Act. Therefore the business income of the assessee of Rs. 4,37,55,674/- and income from other sources ... with the reliefs and concessions “From CBDT” namely to consider the exemption/grant relief to the company from the provisions of various sections including Section 72(3) of the Act. Further the CBDT was represented by its Counsel and after considering the same, BIFR passed the above order. Since the views

Sahyadri Karad Hospitals Private Limited, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5, Pune

ITA 563/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(1)Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

future years cannot be more than Rs.316465973/- (Excluding business loss of AY 2010-11 as the same can not be carried forward per section 72(3) of the Act from the total losses allowed till AY 2018-19)) given the fact that the current year loss of Rs.55829267

Sahyadri Karad Hospitals Private Limited, Pune vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5, Pune

ITA 562/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(1)Section 32(2)Section 72Section 72(3)

future years cannot be more than Rs.316465973/- (Excluding business loss of AY 2010-11 as the same can not be carried forward per section 72(3) of the Act from the total losses allowed till AY 2018-19)) given the fact that the current year loss of Rs.55829267