← All Phrases

“carry forward of losses”

Losses & Set-offSection 72Section 72260 judgments

The decision most relied on for carry forward of losses is Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (340 ITR 477), cited in 213 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on carry forward of losses

Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
340 ITR 477 · 2012 · High Court
213
citing judgments

If unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year for Section 80-IA claim have already been set off against other income, they cannot be notionally carried forward again to reduce the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. The notional carry forward provision under Section 80-IA(5) applies only to unabsorbed depreciation or losses that have not yet been absorbed.

CIT v. Shri Plot Swetamber Murti Pujak Jain Mandal
211 ITR 293 · 1995 · High Court
204
citing judgments

A charitable trust can carry forward its excess expenditure from previous years and adjust it against the income of subsequent years, which qualifies as an application of income under Section 11. Additionally, voluntary contributions received for a specific purpose are treated as corpus funds and are not taxable.

Income Tax v. Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS)
131 Taxmann 386 · 2003 · High Court
188
citing judgments

The Income Tax Act, 1961, does not permit the carry forward of excess expenditure of a charitable trust to be set off against future surpluses, as such trusts are governed by a self-contained code under Sections 11 to 13, not the head 'Profits and Gains of Business'. However, depreciation on fixed assets is allowable to a charitable institution registered under section 12A.

CIT v. Matriseva Trust
242 ITR 20 · 2000 · High Court
91
citing judgments

An excess of expenditure incurred by a charitable trust in previous years can be adjusted against the income of a subsequent year, and this adjustment is considered an application of income for charitable purposes under Section 11.

CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.
99 ITR 118 · 1975 · Supreme Court
78
citing judgments

The terms 'income' or 'profits and gains' are inclusive of losses, signifying that losses are 'minus income' to be factored into the computation of taxable income. Therefore, set-off and carry forward provisions for losses apply exclusively to taxable income or gains and cannot be pressed into service against non-taxable gains, such as those exempt under a DTAA or other specific provisions.

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.
286 ITR 255 · 2006 · High Court
73
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act is to be allowed only after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses against the profits of the business.

CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 280 · 2013 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Loss incurred by certain types of companies in trading derivatives is considered speculative loss under the Explanation to Section 73, as the value of stock derivatives depends on shares. Such speculative losses are ineligible for set-off or carry forward against business income.

CIT v. Manmohan Das
59 ITR 699 · 1966 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The eligibility for an assessee to carry forward and set off losses, including capital losses, against future income is determined by the Assessing Officer in the year the set-off is claimed, not in the year the loss was incurred.

Judgments citing carry forward of losses

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

ITA 887/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to Rs. 6,48,51,847 under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. 17. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to Rs. 6,48,51,847 under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. 17. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above ... circumstances of the case, and in law, and based on the directions of the learned DRP, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to INR 12,68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as claimed by the Appellant in its return

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to Rs. 6,48,51,847 under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. 17. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above ... circumstances of the case, and in law, and based on the directions of the learned DRP, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to INR 12,68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as claimed by the Appellant in its return

General Reinsurance Ag, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comm. of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Range 2(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 2447/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 115BSection 144C(5)Section 9(1)(i)

above, the learned AO has on the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to Rs. 6,48,51,847 under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. 17. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above ... circumstances of the case, and in law, and based on the directions of the learned DRP, erred in not allowing carry forward of losses amounting to INR 12,68,81,654 under the head 'Profits and gains of business of profession' as claimed by the Appellant in its return

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara**

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

## **IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI** ## **BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER** ## **ITA No.8994/Del/2025

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 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