Section 72 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.112

Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 112 (Carry forward and set off of business loss) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 112 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 72 is Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. v. ACIT (273 ITR 152), cited in 29 of the 386 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 72

Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd. v. ACIT
273 ITR 152 · 2005 · High Court
29
citing judgments

Allocation of R&D expenditure to eligible units is not clearly warranted when R&D units are maintained within manufacturing units and not as independent entities. This is particularly relevant when the Assessing Officer allocates R&D expenses to Export Oriented Units (EOUs) in the ratio of turnover, and the Commissioner (Appeals) has deleted such additions.

UOP LIC v. Additional Director of Income
108 ITD 186 · 2007 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

The Tribunal can allow the admission of additional evidence at the appellate stage if the assessee demonstrates a substantial cause for not producing it before the lower authorities. This discretion must be exercised judiciously, not arbitrarily.

CIT v. Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals Pvt Ltd.
240 ITR 1 · 1999 · Supreme Court
12
citing judgments

Electrical installations, including wiring, call bells, buzzers, and door locks, are considered furniture and fittings, not plant and machinery, and are thus eligible for depreciation at the rate of 10%.

CIT(A) v. Haryana Hotels Ltd.
276 ITR 521 · 2005 · High Court
11
citing judgments

An assessee is not legally required to file a return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1) to carry forward and set off unabsorbed depreciation.

Zandu Pharmaceuticals Work Ltd. v. CIT
31 Taxmann.com 191 · 2013 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Common corporate expenses should not be allocated when computing the profit of an SEZ unit, if the expenses were not incurred for that specific unit.

94) (SC); (ii) Nandi Steels Ltd. v. ACIT (436 ITR 22S) (Kar HC); (iii) Digital Electronics ltd. Vs. ADIT
16 Taxmann.com 316 · 2011 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Solvent & Vanaspati Industries Ltd. 16 DTR 492 (Asr Trib.) 2. Suresh Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
27 Taxmann.com 203 · 2012 · ITAT
6
citing judgments
Nandi Steels Ltd. Vs. ACIT (436 ITR 22S) (Kar HC); (iii) Digital Electronics ltd. v. ADIT (
432 ITR 277 · 2021 · High Court
5
citing judgments
CIT v. Yokogava India Ltd.
77 Taxmann.com 51 · 2017 · Supreme Court
5
citing judgments
Ram Dayal CIT 18 ITR 375 (All.); M.K Muhammad Ibrahim vs. CIT 10 ITR 64 (Mad.), CIT v. Jug Sah Muni Lai Sah
123 ITR 648 · 1980 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 72

Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(3), Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4602/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. Dcit, -8(1) (Formerly Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known As Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony It Park, 8Th, 9Th & 10Th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072 Pan:Aaact 1567 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4469 & 4470/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit, -8(1)Aayakar Bhavan. Vs. M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. M.K. Roadmumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 18/03/2014 Of The Cit (A)-16 Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Years (Ay.S.).Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Information Technology Enabled Services.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are Common,So,A Single Order Is Being Passed.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 72Section 80ASection 80B(5)

DCIT 8(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4469/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4602 & 4603/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. Dcit, -8(1) (Formerly Known As Transworks Information Services Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan. M.K. Road (Now Known As Minacs Ltd.) Mumbai-400 020. Symphony It Park, 8Th, 9Th & 10Th Floor Vs. Chandivali Farm Road, Chandivali Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072 Pan:Aaact 1567 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06&2006-07 आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./4469 & 4470/Mum/2014, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dcit, -8(1)Aayakar Bhavan. Vs. M/S.Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd. M.K. Roadmumbai-400 020. Mumbai-400 072. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr Assessee By: Shri Ronak Doshi-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 16.02.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 16.02.2017 आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 18/03/2014 Of The Cit (A)-16 Mumbai,The Assessing Officer (Ao)And The Assessee Have Filed Cross Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Years (Ay.S.).Assessee-Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Information Technology Enabled Services.As The Issues Involved In Both The Years Are Common,So,A Single Order Is Being Passed.

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi-ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-DR
Section 10Section 10ASection 254(1)Section 72Section 80ASection 80B(5)

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)