← All Phrases

“Section 70(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 70Section 70(1)11 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 70(1) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (391 ITR 274), cited in 290 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 70(1)

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

MavaliyaBhikhubhaiBalabhai v. ITO (TDS)\n
70 Taxmann.com 45 · 2016 · High Court
93
citing judgments

Interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, forms an integral part of enhanced compensation and is not taxable as "Income from Other Sources" under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Finance Act, 2009 amendments do not alter the compensatory nature of such interest.

Bai Sonabai Hirji Agiary Trust v. ITO
93 ITD 70 · 2005 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

For the purpose of accumulation of income under section 11(1)(a), the calculation is to be made on the gross receipts of the trust before deducting any expenses. This interpretation is based on the plain language of section 11(1)(a) and is supported by Supreme Court decisions.

70 ITD 214 11. Jain Bharat Tanners Vs. CIT (Mad) 264 ITR 673 12. Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CIT(Mad)
101 ITD 495 · 2006 · ITAT
35
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct necessary inquiries or investigate facts when circumstances warrant it, demonstrating a lack of complete scrutiny. This failure to act as an investigator and not just an adjudicator can trigger revision under Section 263.

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.

Grass Field Farms & Resorts (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
70 Taxmann.com 176 · 2016 · ITAT
21
citing judgments

A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be confirmed even if the assessment order involves both concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars, especially when revised returns are filed declaring additional income post-survey.

CIT v. Gujarat Carbon Ltd.
254 ITR 294 · 2002 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Payments made under an agreement that are directly related to services in the revenue field are allowable as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupur v. Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P.) Ltd.
76 Taxmann.com 176 · 2016 · Supreme Court
19
citing judgments

Profits of other businesses cannot be notionally brought forward and set off against profits of an eligible business under Section 80-IA(5) as the Income-Tax Act does not provide for such a mandate.

Judgments citing Section 70(1)

Ashvin Dineshbhai Jadav, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 428/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

account. The AO ought to have allowed set off of business loss incurred in the intra head of account as provided in section 70(1) of the Act. 12. We also find that amendment for not allowing set off of loss against the income determined under section 68/69/69A/698/69C/69D

M/S. Ankur Grand Owners Association, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-10(1), Chennai

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

ITA 480/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:480/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. B.Ramakrishnan, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 57Section 70(1)

commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by failing to apply :-2-: ITA. No:480/Chny/2025 the provisions of Section 70(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which explicitly permits the set-off of losses from one source against income from another source under

Dimple Alnesh Somji, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 973/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: CA Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

speculative loss, has rightly been set off by the assessee against regular business profits from medical derivatives business. 17. As per section 70 (1) of the 1.T. Act, where the net result for any Assessment Year in respect of any source falling under any head of income, other than ... have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. 18. So, according to section 70(1) of the I.T. Act, loss from any source under any head of income can be set off against income from any other source under

Titan Company Limited, Hosur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Ltu 2 (Ic), Chennai

In the result the appeal raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1742/CHNY/2024[2011- 12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1742/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Years: 2011-12 Titan Company Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.3, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Ltu-2, Tamil Nadu-635126 Chennai [Pan: Aaact5131A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Abhay Kumar, C.A अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Ms.Komali Krishna, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.12.2024

For Appellant: Ms.Komali Krishna, CIT
Section 147Section 250Section 80Section 80C(2)(a)Section 80I

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘बी’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI श्री यस यस विश्िनेत्र रवि

ACIT-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Essar Shipping Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statisti...

ITA 87/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit Circle 5(1)(1), M/S Essar Shipping Ltd., R. No. 568, Aayakar Bhavan, Essar House, 11, K K Marg, Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. Pan No. Aacce 3707 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Mr. Mudit Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 115VSection 36(1)

referred to reduced. In its submission, the Appellant has referred to reduced. In its submission, the Appellant has referred to provision of sub section 70(1) and 71(1) which provides provision of sub section 70(1) and 71(1) which provides provision of sub section 70(1

DCIT- CC-1(2), Mumbai vs. Niranjan L. Hiranandani, Mumbai

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

ITA 1896/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1896 & 1895/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. KachaFor Respondent: Shri K. Gopal, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 3Section 57

1895/Mum/2021 Shri Niranjan L. Hiranandani and deducted payment of interest on loan paid on loan to ICICI Bank in accordance with section 70(1), i.e. of set off of loss within one source. However, we find that neither the Ld. CIT(A) nor before the AO there was any such

Ansr Global Corporation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 225/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. S. Padmavathyit(Tp)A No.225/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Ansr Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Vs. Ground Floor, Block L1, Circle – 1(1)(1), Manyata Embassy Business Park, Bengaluru. Sez, Outer Ring Road, Nagwara, Bengaluru-560 045. Pan : Aaecn 7296 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

would not be attracted and therefore intra head set off sought by seeking to rely on the provision of section 70(1) of the Act and seeking to restrict the deduction u/s 10A and 10AA of the Act to the extent of gross total income as contemplated

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 556/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

losses from one source against s .e income from other sources under the same head of income in terms of section 70(1) 5) The DRP also erred in placing reliance on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd which

ITO, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 402/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

losses from one source against s .e income from other sources under the same head of income in terms of section 70(1) 5) The DRP also erred in placing reliance on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd which

Xchanging Solutions Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 492/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

losses from one source against s .e income from other sources under the same head of income in terms of section 70(1) 5) The DRP also erred in placing reliance on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd which

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Xchanging Solutions Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 459/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Raghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arunkumar, CIT(DR)(TP)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 10A(4)Section 143(3)Section 155

losses from one source against s .e income from other sources under the same head of income in terms of section 70(1) 5) The DRP also erred in placing reliance on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd which