← All Phrases

“carry forward of losses”

Losses & Set-offSection 72Section 72260 judgments

VIVIDODDESH PRATHAMIKA GRAMEENA KRUSHI SAHAKAR SANGHA NIYAMIT HIRUR ,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, HAVERI

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

ITA 2197/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Shambhu Kulkarni, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P

filed i.e., on 31.03.2009. Since return was not filed within the due date as required under section 139(1) of the Act, no carry forward of losses of Rs. 11,00,25,707/- is allowed for future years. The dispute reached to Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated ... Mere delay in submitting the ITR-V does not make the return invalid for denying the benefit of carry forward of losses in future years. We therefore hold that the assessee is entitled to carry forward of loss to future years. Accordingly, we set aside the order

COMMUNIDADE OF CHICALIM,CHICALIM vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 207/PAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji17 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.207/Pan/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17 ) Comunidade Of Chicalim, Vs Acit Circle 2(1), Ground Floor, St Xavier Aaykar Bhavan, . Church Building, Edc, Patto, Chicalim-403802, Panjim South Goa,Goa. Goa-403001. Pan .No. Aaaabc0196P (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 57Section 74

assessee has filed the detailed submissions along with requisite information and documents. The Assessing officer find that the assessee had claimed setoff of carried forward capital loss pertaining to A.Y.2007-08 ofRs.1,39,99,426/- and of A.Y.2009-10 of Rs.9,06,334/- both aggregating to Rs.1,49,05,760/- against ... capital gains of Rs.1,65,74,350/-. The A.O find that the assessee could not carried forward the loss for eight assessment years immediately succeeding the A.Y.2007-08, and such loss can be set off till A.Y.2015-16. 3. The A.O dealt on the provisions of section

CHITRADURGA ZILLA REDDY JANA SANGH(R),CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 EXEMPTION, HUBLI

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

ITA 1625/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand Kalakeri, D.R
Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 250

charitable trust was not assessable under the head "Profits and gains of business" under section 28 in which the provision for carry forward of losses was relevant. That, in the case of a charitable trust, there was no provision for carry forward of the excess of expenditure of earlier years

ORIENTAL HOTELS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE-5(1), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2601/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154Section 35D(8)(C)

r.w.r 8D was made to the tune of Rs.7,46,949/-. That apart, in the computation sheet and in carry forward of losses, certain errors have crept in and the assessee was aggrieved by all of them and had filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), which ultimately came ... loss was set off only to the extent of Rs.8,42,47,834/- as claimed in the ITR instead of setting off correct carry forward business loss to the extent of profits determined at Rs.9,04,58,562/- and thereby the gross total income was wrongly determined at Rs.9

REPRO INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7605/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrepro India Limited Acit Circle 11Th Floor, B Wing, Sun 8(1)(1), Paradise Business Plaza, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacr0379J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.02.2026

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

composite consideration, the computation of long- term capital gain at Rs. 20,58,42,226/-, the consequential denial of set-off and carry forward of losses, and the initiation of penalty proceedings. 13. The assessee reiterated that only Rs. 11,76,46,508/- out of the total consideration ... computed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) also upheld the consequential actions of the Assessing Officer, including denial of set-off and carry forward of losses and did not interfere with the initiation of penalty proceedings. 15. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

nand in the circumstances of the case, and in law, and based on the directions of\nthe learned DRP, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to INR\n12,68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as\nclaimed by the Appellant

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,COLOGNE, GERMANY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE - 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4691/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

nand in the circumstances of the case, and in law, and based on the directions of\nthe learned DRP, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to INR\n12,68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as\nclaimed by the Appellant

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2448/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

nand in the circumstances of the case, and in law, and based on the directions of\nthe learned DRP, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to INR\n12,68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as\nclaimed by the Appellant

GENERAL REINSURANCE AG,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMM. OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-RANGE 2(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are partly\nallowed

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

nand in the circumstances of the case, and in law, and based on the directions of\nthe learned DRP, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to INR\n12,68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as\nclaimed by the Appellant

AVALON INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 3(2), DELHI

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 8994/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

disallowance of carry forward losses was deemed unsustainable in law.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "143(1)", "139(1)", "36(1)(va)" ], "issues": "Whether carry forward of losses is permissible when the return is filed belatedly, and whether the disallowance of Rs.6,56,193/- under Section 36(1)(va) is justified

MUKUT BEHARI LAL BHARGAVA,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 3(1), GURGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2234/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Grover, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 80Section 80G

capital loss (LTCL) during the year. Ld. AO observed that in A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee had filed belated return, therefore, benefit of carry forward of losses was not available in view of provisions of section 80 of the Act. As the assessee did not submit any reply

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANDILAL & GANESH PODAR SOCIETY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4000/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

Charitable Trust was not assessable under the head profits and gains of business" under section 28 in which the provision for carry forward of losses was relevant That, in the case of a Charitable Trust, there was no provision for carry forward of the excess of expenditure of earlier years

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3433/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry forward of losses. forward of losses. It is a settled principle of law that the mere It is a settled principle of law that the mere issuance

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3432/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry forward of losses. forward of losses. It is a settled principle of law that the mere It is a settled principle of law that the mere issuance

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3431/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry forward of losses. forward of losses. It is a settled principle of law that the mere It is a settled principle of law that the mere issuance

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3430/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry forward of losses. forward of losses. It is a settled principle of law that the mere It is a settled principle of law that the mere issuance

VIIKING MEDIA AND ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI CITY

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3414/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

For Appellant: Mr. Rajjev KhandelwalFor Respondent: 18/11/2025
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry to respond, the AO proceeded to allow the claim of carry forward of losses. forward of losses. It is a settled principle of law that the mere It is a settled principle of law that the mere issuance

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 215/LKW/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 201

claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P. 4. Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought to have allowed set off of carry forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY COOPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/LKW/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 201

claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P. 4. Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought to have allowed set off of carry forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution

U.P CIVIL SECRETARIAT PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE BANK,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-2(3), LUCKNOW

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/LKW/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 201

claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 80P. 4. Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought to have allowed set off of carry forward of losses claimed by the assessee. 5.1 Because the learned 1st appellate authority ought not to have disallowed Rs.7,47,412/- in respect of Bank contribution

Showing 1–20 of 260 · Page 1 of 13

...