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

Protech Exim (India) P Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 1089/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1089/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2019-20) Protech Exim (India) Pvt. बिधम/ Acit, Cpc Ltd. Bangaluru. Vs. C/O G. P. Mehta & Co. Cas, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacp3317N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri G. P. Mehta Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 16.03.2023 For Ay. 2019-20. 2. The Ground No. 1 Is General In Nature. 3. The Ground No. 2 Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Denying Set-Off Of Business Loss Of Rs.38,487/- Against Other Head Of Income For The Same Assessment Year. 4. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2019-20 On 21.10.2019 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.5,83,870/.- The Return Was Processed By Cpc U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Assessed The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.15,87,350/- By Making Disallowance Of Rs.10,03,480/- Out Of Which, Ground No. 2 Emanates I.E. Disallowance Of Rs.38,481/- Which Action Of Cpc Has Been Confirmed By Ld.

For Appellant: Shri G. P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 71

Varun Batra, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 3175/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3175/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varun Batra बिधम/ National Faceless Appeal Flat 5, 5Th Floor, La Mer, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Vs. Mistry Park, Kadeshwari Temple Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400040. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aezpb9157L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.08.2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though, The Matter Was Listed For Seven (7) Times, No One Represented/Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find That Written Submission Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & After Perusal Of The Written Submission, We Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Which The Assessee’S Claim Of Loss Of Rs.15,23,598/- To Be Set-Off Against The Income From Other Heads (Apart From Salary) Was Disallowed By The Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 2Section 43(5)