Section 70 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.108

Section 70 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 108 (Set off of losses under same head of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 108 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 70 is PCIT v. Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi, HUF (87 Taxmann.com 137), cited in 29 of the 295 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 70

PCIT v. Bhanuprasad D. Trivedi, HUF
87 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Income from assets held by a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) cannot be treated as business income if the primary purpose is investment, not business operations.

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.

JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n
100 ITD 217 · 2006 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Each transaction can be considered a separate source of income, allowing taxpayers to choose between the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for each transaction. Section 70(2) of the Act does not prescribe an order for setting off specific short-term capital losses against specific short-term capital gains, favouring the taxpayer in interpretation.

Kishorebhai Bhikhabhai Virani v. ACIT
367 ITR 261 · 2014 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Capital gains arising from the transfer of equity shares and equity-oriented mutual funds are exempt if the shares are long-term capital assets, transferred on the stock exchange, and the sale transaction is subject to levy. The case also relates to the application of beneficial provisions and the rejection of claims under Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA).

Raptakos Brett & Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
69 SOT 383 · 2015 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Long-term capital loss on the sale of shares can be set off and carried forward under sections 70 and 71, as section 10(38) only exempts long-term capital gains and does not encompass capital losses.

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.

ACIT v. J.P. Morgan India Investment Company Mauritius Limited
143 Taxmann.com 82 · 2022 · ITAT
18
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims treaty benefits under Article 13(4) of the India-Mauritius DTAA, exempting capital gains from Indian taxation, brought forward short-term and long-term capital losses cannot be set off against such exempt gains, nor can they be carried forward to subsequent years.

CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Ltd.
40 ITR 106 · 1960 · Supreme Court
18
citing judgments

Capital losses can be carried forward to subsequent assessment years. The decision emphasizes that if a business conducted outside British India resulted in a loss, it could not be set off against profits from a business within British India, based on the interpretation of Section 5 of the Business Profits Tax Act, 1947.

Royal Calcutta Turf Club v. CIT
144 ITR 709 · 1983 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Capital loss arising from the sale of shares can be carried forward to subsequent years. The accounting treatment of shares as a capital asset in the books of account confirms that their sale generates capital profit or loss.

Judgments on Section 70

DCIT, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kalamkari Designs Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/KOL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. P.M.Jagtap & Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravidcit, M/S. Kalamkari Designs Vs Circle-11(1), P-7, Pvt.Ltd., 138, Beliaghata Chowringhee Square, Square, Kolkata-700015. Kolkata-700069. Pan-Aabck2117N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Soumesh Dash, Addl. Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. D.S.Damle, Fca Date Of Hearing 06.09.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 17.10.2016 Passed By Cit(A)-10, Kolkata For Ay 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is A Manufacturer & Exporter Of Garments. 3. Ground No.1 Raised By The Revenue Challenging The Action Of The Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain As Against The Income From Other Sources Held By The Ao. 4. According To Ao, The Assessee Earned Profit Of Rs.49,85,861/- On Sales Of Shares & Booked The Same As “Other Income”. The Same Has Been Shown As Long Term Capital Gain In The Computation Of Total Income & Sought Set Off Against Forwarded Long Term Capital Loss. 5. The Ao Treated The Said Profit As Income From Other Sources & Denied Set Off Against The Forwarded Loss By The Reasons As Under: A. “The Auditor Had Qualified In The Tax Audit Report That The Investments Were Held In The Name Of The Director Of The Company.