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

Varun Batra, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 3205/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Am Varun Batra National Faceless Appeal Centre Flat 5, 5Th Floor, La Mer, Mistry Park, (Nfac) Kadeshwari Temple Road, Bandra Vs. West, Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. Aezpb9157L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, (Sr Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Has Grossly Erred Both In Law And, On Facts In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. 2,46,16,528/- As Against Declared Income At Rs. 2,30,52,930/- In An Order Of Assessment Dated 18.03.2016 U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. That The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi Has Grossly Erred Both In Law & Fact In Holding That Sum Of Rs. 15,33,595/-Representing Loss On Account Of Share Trading. Varun Batra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, (SR DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 68Section 71Section 72