Section 71 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.109

Section 71 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 109 (Set off of losses under any other head of income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 109 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 71 is Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax (34 ITR 368), cited in 57 of the 295 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 71

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. v. CIT & Excess Profits Tax
34 ITR 368 · 1958 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Investments made by a holding company in its subsidiary can be considered a business activity, allowing related business expenditures to be deducted and not disallowed.

CIT v. Upasana
225 ITR 845 · 1997 · High Court
41
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a holding company for making investments in a subsidiary can be treated as business expenditure and is not disallowable, as such investment activity can itself constitute a business.

CIT v. Autokast Ltd.
248 ITR 110 · 2001 · Supreme Court
41
citing judgments

Interest earned on surplus funds deposited in short-term deposits is chargeable under section 56 as income from other sources. This interest cannot be treated as business income unless it is inextricably linked with the business operations.

Agro Portfolio (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
94 Taxmann.com 112 · 2018 · High Court
33
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) has the power to disturb the valuation of shares provided by the assessee's chartered accountant, even if Rule 11UA(2) is followed. If the AO doubts the valuation report, they are not necessarily bound to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and can adopt a different method to determine the fair market value.

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.

Mazagaon Dock Ltd. Vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 368 (SC); CIT v. Upasana Hospital
83 ITR 377 · 1972 · Supreme Court
20
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a holding company in making investments in its subsidiaries can be treated as a business activity and thus, the expenditure is allowable as a business deduction.

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.

Judgments on Section 71

Girdhari K Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 12(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s is dismissed

ITA 6292/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6292/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Girdharilal K. Agrawal Asst. Cit-12(3), बनाम/ Room No. 658, 6Th Floor, 302, Vikas Building, 11, Bank Street, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpa 1257 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Miss Arati Vissanji ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Airiju Jaikaran सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.06.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 11.7.2014, Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10 Vide Order Dated 22.05.2012. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Claimed Set Off Of Loss In Commodities (Rs.14,16,135/-) Against Speculative Income, I.E., To The Extent Available (Rs.5,31,333/-) & The Balance (Rs.8,84,802/-) Against Non-Speculative

For Appellant: Miss Arati VissanjiFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran
Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 72(1)

ITO 1(1)-4, Mumbai vs. Golconde Properties P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 6254/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/6254/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-1(1)-4 M/S. Golconde Properties Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, 5, Roshera Building, Room No.531 A/579 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Dinshaw Vaccha Road, Churchgate Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaccg 4199 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ""या"ेप ""या"ेप/Co/103/Mum/2016 ""या"ेप ""या"ेप Arising Out Of 6254/Mum/14, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 वष" M/S. Golconde Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1)-4 Mumbai-20. Mumbai-20. (Cross Objector/ ""या"ेपक) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Vivek Perampurna-Dr Assessee By: Shri Nishith Khatri सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 04.08.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dt.30.07.2014 Of Cit(A)-1,Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (A.O.) & The Assessee Have Filed Appeal/Cross Objections For The Year Under Consideration.Assessee- Company,Filed Its Return Of Income On 14.02.2013 Declaring Total At Rs.Nil.The Ao Complet - Ed Assessment,On 13.12.113,U/.S143(3) Of The Act,Determining Income Of The Assessee At Rs.35.34 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Shri Nishith KhatriFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna-DR
Section 254(1)Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 71Section 80G