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. 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)