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

DCIT, Ncc - 1 (1), Chennai vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India LLP., Cuddalore

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 282/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1212/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. Non Corporate Circle 1(1), [Pan:Aaifd2025J] Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Chennai. Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S.D. Babu, Advocate Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit & Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Chennai Dated 27.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Revenue Preferred An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2

For Appellant: Shri G.S.D. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

Dfe Pharma India LLP., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, CC - 2(1), Chennai

In the result the appeal is allowed

ITA 1212/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1212/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Income Tax, Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. Non Corporate Circle 1(1), [Pan:Aaifd2025J] Chennai. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.282/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Dfe Pharma India Llp, Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 1(1), B-4, Sipcot Industrial Complex, Chennai. Kudikadu, Cuddalore 607 005. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.S.D. Babu, Advocate Department By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit & Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Chennai Dated 27.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short]. The Revenue Preferred An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2

For Appellant: Shri G.S.D. Babu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT &
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 80P

Puli Ashok Reddy, Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nellore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri K. Narsimha Chary & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanishri Puli Ashok Reddy, Nellore. Pan Acspp8800H …..Appellant. Vs. Pr. Commission Of Income-Tax, Tirupati. …..Respondent. Appellant By : Shri A.V. Raghuram, Adv. Respondent By : Shri Rajendra Kumar, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.03.2022. O R D E R Per Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Revision-Order Dated 12.03.2021 Passed By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tirupati [“Ld. Pcit” In Short] U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“‘The Act” In Short] For Assessment-Year 2016-17. 2 2. The Registry Has Informed That That The Present Appeal Was Required To Be Filed By 11.05.2021 But The Same Was Actually Filed On 16.12.2021, After A Delay Of 219 Days. The Ld. Ar Prayed That The Delay Has Occurred Due To Covid-19 Pandemic. The Ld. Ar Further Placed Reliance On The Order Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 Of 2020 Read With Misc. Applications, By Which Suo Motu Extension Of The Limitation-Period For Filing Of Appeals W.E.F. 15.03.2020 Under All Laws Has Been Granted & Hence There Is No Delay In Fact. We Confronted The Ld. Dr Who Agreed To The Submission Of Ld. Ar. In View Of This, The Appeal Is Proceeded With For Hearing, There Being No Delay.

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 7Section 72