“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

Jasumatiben Lalitchandra Shah, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajkot

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

ITA 874/RJT/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250

ground no.2 raised by the assessee, stating that the AO was erred in not giving credit for the carry forward of losses of Rs.2,29,552/-. Both these grounds are inter-related and mixed. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the issue on merit, rather than to dismiss

Tvf Fund Ltd., Mauritius, Mumbai vs. DCIT (International Taxation)-4(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4632/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmavathy S ()

Section 153Section 74Section 90(2)

DTAA. 4.3 The Ld. AR further submitted that, such kind of treatment to avail benefit of gains as per DTAA and carry forward of losses as per Income Tax Act, was a subject matter of consideration before the Hon’ble Mumbai Special Bench in case of Sumitomo Mitsui Banking ... profit shifting, that could be attributable in the hands of the assessee by availing benefits under both DTAA of gains as well as carry forward of loss as per Indian Income tax Act. He also relied on 12 A.Y.2021-22 the decision of Coordinate bench of the Tribunal in case

Shiva Speciality Yarns Ltd., Ludhiana vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, Ludhiana

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Navneet Sehgal, CA and Ms. Naina Gaba Sehgal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 80

toss are contained in Chapter - VI (Aggregation of Income and set off losses) Section 80 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 concerned with carry forward of losses. They are not concerned with determination of income or loss for the year. The Assessing Officer in his overzealousness wrongly, illegally and without ... fact as per the following documents on record:- As per the computation of income filed for this assessment year 2018-19, without claiming carry forward of losses. Filing of return for the next assessment year 2019-20 on 31.10.2019 without claiming carry forward of business loss under consideration (Return enclosed

Shell & Pearl Porcellano Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2851/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.Ta. No.2851/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shell & Pearl Porcellano Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 207, Sarthik-Ii, Ward-4(1)(3), Opp. Rajpath Club, Ahmedabad. S.G Highway, Ahmedabad-380054. [Pan No.Aagcs2593B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Firoj Bodla, Ar Respondent By: Shri Ap Singh, Cit. Dr 16.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Firoj Bodla, ARFor Respondent: Shri AP Singh, CIT. DR

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

parts. The return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 was e-filed on 28.09.2012 with returned total income at ‘Nil’ with carry forward of losses of Rs.54,67,13,608/-. The same was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act by Central Processing Centre, Bangalore accepting the total income

Inder Chand Bajaj, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, Delhi

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

ITA 2873/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

Nadia District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Nadia vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AR &For Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. 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

Excelsoft Technologies Limited, Mysore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Mysore

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

ITA 2191/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Bibhuti Ram Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 90

nature. 2.5 On facts and circumstances, the Appellant is eligible for credit of foreign taxes under section 90. 3. Grounds relating to carry forward of losses: 3.1. The learned JCIT(A) erred in concluding that the Appellant is eligible to carry forward business loss determined in the rectification order passed ... return of income. Page 3 of 9 3.2. The learned JCIT(A) erred in concluding that the Appellant is eligible to carry forward business loss of AY 2018-19 only to the extent determined in the order passed under section 143(3) for the said assessment year.” 3. The brief

Shri Gayatri Constructions, Nellore vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of assessee for A

ITA 294/HYD/2024[AY 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2025

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 153DSection 80

original return and consequently, all other provisions 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, he ought to have allowed the carry forward capital loss claimed by the assessee. 6. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, held that, as per the provisions ... there is no merit in the contention of the assessee because of restrictive provisions contained in Section 80 of the Act, which prohibits carry forward of losses to the subsequent year, once the return of income has not been filed on or before the due date provided under Section

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Kiri Industries Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the adjustment made in the intimation under section 143(1) dated August 13, 2017 denying carry forward of loss of Rs

ITA 1170/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 92E

following grounds of appeal: “1. Whether on facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the carry forward of loss of Rs. 65,39,53,132/- even though there is an anomaly in the date 28.11.2015 mentioned in Form 3CEB ... filed within the due date prescribed by law and therefore no adjustment is called for. The assessee submitted that the disallowance of the carry forward of loss was erroneous, since return of income was filed within the due filing date. The assessee submitted that the AO's decision to deny

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Pune vs. ACIT, Mumbai

ITA 5701/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari &For Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

Section 10A

taxmann.com 223/288 Тахтап 491/446 ITR 1. The assessee furnished 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 that ... under section 139(5) of the Act, assessee did not claim deduction under section 10B of the Act, and instead claimed benefit of carry forward of losses. It was in light of these facts that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on a plain reading of section

Fortrea Scientific Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5678/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Section 10A

Akshaya Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1931/CHNY/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

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

For Appellant: Shri Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh –

Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 143(1)

thereto, which is 31st day of October of the assessment year in the case of a Company, for purposes of eligibility for carry forward of losses under various provisions of the Act enumerated in Sec.139(3) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT ... thereto, which is 31st day of October of the assessment year in the case of a Company, for purposes of eligibility for carry forward of losses under various provisions of the Act enumerated in Sec.139(3) of the Act. In this regard, it has been brought to our notice that

Autonomy Homes P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), New Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2899/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2896/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 2899/Del/2023:Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Autonomy Homes Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 310-A, Plot No. 3, Jaina Tower, Ward-3(4), Janak Puri, West Delhi, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica1482F Assessee By : Sh. Prince Bansal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Twin Appeals

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

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

Autonomy Homes Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Delhi

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITA 2896/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Prince Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69C

Learning Universe LLP, New Delhi vs. DDIT, DDIT CPC Bangaluru

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

ITA 1828/PUN/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Abhinav Jain (through virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 34(4)

section 139(1) of the Act and in this case the same has not been filed. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible to carry forward of losses for the AY. 2016-17 and 2018-19. Hence, the CPC is justified in not allowing the carry forward of losses ... then what is the due date for filing of the returns and whether in the intervening period any such carry forward of loss is allowed or not. The assessee also has not given any details to substantiate its case that in the intervening period i.e. in assessment years

A Kheni Developer Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 12(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1878/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri V.P. KothariFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

section 37(1) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) also dismissed the ground raised by the assessee pertaining to the allowance of carry forward of losses. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have considered the submissions of both sides, perused the material available

Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5, Nagpur vs. The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co-Op Society Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

ITA 390/NAG/2019[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Vikash Agrawal

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)

annexed the chart prepared on the basis of returned loss and assessed loss by the department itself. Accordingly, the AO had accepted the carry forward of losses for those years. So there is nothing wrong done on part of the appellant in claiming those c/f losses

Bansal Corelam Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-32(3), New Delhi

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1856/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshbansal Corelam Pvt. Ltd Vs. Ito, C-167, Mp Enclave, Maurya Ward-32(3), Enclave, Pitampura, New New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcb7341M

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Poojan Rana, Sr. DR

Section 10BSection 10B(5)Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 72

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

Srimanta Kumar Shit, Purba Medinapore vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 27(2), Haldia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Nov 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1911/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Srimanta Kumar Shit,………………...…………Appellant Rangamalaput, Junput-Contai, Purba Medinapore-721450, West Bengal [Pan:Bffps3635Q] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax..…Respondent Circle-27(2), Haldia, Basudebpur, Talpukur, Khanjan Chak, Haldia, Midnapore-721101, W.B. Appearances By: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Lata Goyal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 19, 2024 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69A

Officer issued notice under section 142(1) on assessee and thereafter, passed assessment under section 143(3) wherein he rejected set-off and carry forward of loss and made additions in income of assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. On appeal, the Tribunal ... 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

M/S Punjab Tourism Developmenet Corporation Limited, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Chandigarh

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/CHANDI/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ao)

For Appellant: Sh.Tejmohan Singh, Adv. and Sh. Vineet Khurana, C. AFor Respondent: Sh.Vivek Vardhan, JCIT, Sr. D. R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 253

Assessing Officer and examined the reply of the assessee. The AO is hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the assessee for carry forward of losses and allow the same if found eligible as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961. Needless to say, if loss is reduced