“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

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

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

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

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

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

Ankur Dealcom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. PCIT, Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 197/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Ankur Dealcom Private Limited Pcit, Room No. 302 & 303, Sikkim Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Commerce House, 4/1, Middleton Chowringhee Square, Vs. Street, Kolkata-700071, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahca2847F Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 68

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in deleting the disallowance of carry forward of losses of earlier years? (b) whether the Learned Tribunal has substantially erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Italian Thai Development Public Company, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the appellant/revenue are dismissed

ITA 2873/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Italian Thai Development Income Tax Public Company, 301 302 Delhi Tower District Centre Janakpuri, Janakpuri A-3 S.O. Janakpuria-3 West Delhi Pin: 1100 58 Delhi Pan: Aabci2013D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Garg, CIT DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

these returns of income, the respondent company had claimed and was allowed the set off and carry forward of losses against the incomes in the nature of royalty and FTS. For all these eight assessment years, the Assessing Officer had raised company against those issues. After examination of the details ... were passed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Assessing Officers had themselves allowed the set off and carry forward of losses against the incomes in the nature of royalty and FTS earned by the respondent in all the prior years which was in accordance with law. The present Assessing Officer

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Italian Thai Development Public Company, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the appellant/revenue are dismissed

ITA 2872/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Garg, CIT DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ACIT, Delhi vs. Italian Thai Development Public Company, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the appellant/revenue are dismissed

ITA 2871/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Garg, CIT DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ACIT, Delhi vs. Italian Thai Development Public Company, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the appellant/revenue are dismissed

ITA 2870/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Adv. & MsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Garg, CIT DR

Section 1Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

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)

return of income under section 139(4) of the Act and as per the provisions of section 139(3) of the Act, for carry forward of losses, the return should have been filed as per the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the AO also referred

Dhiren Ramanlal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2534/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 2534/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2022-23) Dhiren Ramanlal Shah V/S. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1) Fc-5011, Bharat Diamond बिाम 606, Piramal Chambers, Bourse, Bandra Kurla Dr. S. S. Rao Marg, Parel, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400012 Mumbai- 400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aayps3843B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Atul Mehta/ Mr. Uday ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 154Section 154(3)Section 234FSection 250Section 92E

Report u/s 92E of the Act filed by the Assessee for determining the due date for filing of Return of Income and carry forward of losses when the due date i.e. November 30th is applicable to the Assessee as P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2022-23 Dhiren Ramanlal Shah ... before the due date applicable in his case and declared taxable income of Rs. 2184590/- along with carry forward of loss of Rs. 35892208/-. Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore (CPC) proposed an adjustment u/s. 143 (1) (a) stating that carry forward of loss is not allowed since return was filed after

Bindu Kumar, Lucknow vs. ITO-1(1), Lucknow-New

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/LKW/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68

sustained. In the case of PCIT vs. Weilburger Coatings (India) (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court held that since carry forward of losses was not an issue for which the case was picked for limited scrutiny, the AO’s decision to reject the setting off and carry

Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:30/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Mangal Tirth Estate Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, Vs. Corporate Ward- 4(1), Mount Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. [Pan:Aaacm-4614-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. N. V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Filed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/ Jcit (A)-4, Hyderabad, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Vide Order Dated 07.11.2024. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 17.11.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.11,20,57,920/-. The Return Of Income Was Processed By The Ao, Cpc, Bangalore On 29.12.2021 & Raised A Demand Of Rs.93,79,350/- By Denying The Beneficial Tax Rate As Per Section 115Baa Of The Act & By Applying The Tax Rate Of 30%.

For Appellant: Shri. N. V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T

Section 115BSection 119(2)(b)Section 154

required under section 10B(5) of the Act belatedly after the due date mentioned in section 10B(5) of the Act and claimed carry forward of losses under section 72 of the IT Act, withdrawing its claim for deduction under section 10B of the IT Act. In the present case ... taxmann.com 223/288 Taxman 491/446 ITR 1. The assessee furnished the original return taking the benefit of section 10B and did not carry forward the loss. Thereafter, a revised return was filed foregoing the claim of deduction u/s 10B. The AO rejected the withdrawal of exemption under section 10B by holding

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. National E-Assessment Centre, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4100/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld.AO in denying the claim of carry forward of losses as claimed by the Appellant Company. 4. That the Appellant craves to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any or all of the grounds ... disallow these expenses accordingly, we delete the disallowance made by the AO and further direct the AO to allow the assessee to carry forward business loss incurred during the year alongwith loss brought forward from preceding year. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Marvelous Cement Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 16(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4099/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms.Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Ward-16(4), Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru New Delhi Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2018-19] Marvellous Cement Pvt.Ltd., Vs National E-Assessment Flat No.305, 3Rd Floor, Centre, New Delhi Bakshi House, 40-41 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaecm9931F Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca & Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against Two Separate Orders, Both Dated 22.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 6/10624/2019-20 & Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10022053 Respectively, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”]. Both The Appeals Are Arising From The Assessment Orders, Dated 24.12.2019 U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Act & Dt. 15.09.2020

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, Solapur vs. Ward 1(2), Solapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 567/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.567/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Anil Jagannath Kedar, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post-Wasud, Sangola, S Ward-1(2), Solapur. Dist – Solapur – 413307. Maharashtra. Pan : Asvpk0584A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 24.01.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Appeal

Section 144Section 250

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in deleting the disallowance of carry forward of losses of earlier years? (b) Whether the Learned Tribunal has substantially erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer exceeded his jurisdiction

Rama University Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur vs. The Assessment Unit, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 86/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 86/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ram University Uttar Pradesh, Vs The Assessment Unit, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, 100, Rama City, G. T. Road, Mandhana, U.P.-209217 Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi-110003 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadtr0638L Assessee By: Sh. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. & Sh. Ritesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067473637(1) Dated 09.08.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

Shree Cement Limited, Bangur Nagar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Shastha Enterprises, Kollam vs. ITO, Ward 3, Kollam

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 304/COCH/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sabu, CA

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

304/Coch/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The disallowance of PF/ESI under Section 36(1)(va) is upheld, but the issue relating to carry forward of losses is restored to the AO for verification and adjudication. 14. ITA No. 305/Coch/2025 is dismissed in light of the Supreme Court decision

DCIT (It) -3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Jp Morgan India Smaller Companies Fund, Mumbai

Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the CIT(A). Ground No. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1028/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker, Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(3)Section 250Section 90(2)

applicable. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(А) has erred in allowing carry forward of losses which is available only within the ambit of Income Tax Act, when the assessee has chosen to be governed by DTAA thus in contravention

Income Tax Officer, Bodhi Tower vs. Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited, Bund Garden

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

ITA 199/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 80ISection 80P

held that the return of income has been filed in time and therefore the assessee is entitled to claim the benefit of carry forward of loss. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds ... under Section 119 (2) to condone the delay in the case of a return which is filed late and where a claim for carry forward of losses is made. 8. Coming back to the facts of the present case, we find that the impugned order under Section 119 passed

Suraksha Vihar Co Operative Group Housing Society Limited, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 54(1), Delhi, Civic Centre, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1879/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Suraksha Vihar Co-Operative Group Housing Society Limited, Ward-54(1), Suraksha Vihar Cghs, Plot No. Delhi Gh-14, Opp. Gayatri Apartment, Sector-45, Faridabad Pan :Aadas1622E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Dishant Sethi, Adv. Department By Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 57

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Tribunal has committed substantial error in law in deleting the disallowance of carry forward of losses of earlier years? 2 | P a g e Whether the Learned Tribunal has substantially erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer

Prashant Kothari, Singapore vs. CIT A (57) Mumbai, Office of Commissioner of Appeals Mumbai

In the result, the additional ground of

ITA 5391/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2025AY 2016-17

Section 250

article 13(4) of the India - Singapore DTAA and claims to be governed by the provisions of the Act in respect of carry forward of losses. It was submitted that in respect of each source of income, the Appellant is entitled to claim the provisions ... relevant findings therein read as under: “6. The case of the assessee before us is to analyse whether assessee can be allowed to carry forward the loss without being set off against the capital gains in circumstances where both the situation aroses out of shares acquired prior to 01/04/2017

Isc Speciality Chemicals LLP, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 457/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 45Section 47Section 47A(4)Section 48Section 50BSection 56

conversion of a company into an LLP has definite tax implications. Transfer of assets on conversion attracts levy of capital gains tax. Similarly, carry forward of losses and of unabsorbed depreciation is not available to the successor LLP. It is proposed that the transfer of assets on conversion