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

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

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh
Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72