Section 73 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.113

Section 73 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 113 (Set off and carry forward of losses computed in respect of speculation business) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 113 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 73 is 3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI (262 ITR 633), cited in 101 of the 521 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 73

3. CIT v. ASHOK KUMAR SONI
262 ITR 633 · 2003 · High Court
101
citing judgments

This case is cited for the proposition that oral admissions made during the course of a search can be considered as evidence.

CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 280 · 2013 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Loss incurred by certain types of companies in trading derivatives is considered speculative loss under the Explanation to Section 73, as the value of stock derivatives depends on shares. Such speculative losses are ineligible for set-off or carry forward against business income.

Ravindranathan Nair v. CIT
247 ITR 178 · 2001 · Supreme Court
42
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final fact-finding authority. A High Court can only interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings if a specific question alleging perversity of such findings, in the sense that they could not have been reasonably arrived at, has been referred to it.

M/s Liberty India Vs. CIT 225 CTR 233(SC), CIT v. Sterling Foods
227 ITR 557 · 1997 · Supreme Court
32
citing judgments

Income from a deferred VAT rebate granted by a state government for sales tax incentives is not considered income derived from an industrial undertaking and is therefore not eligible for deduction under Section 80IC.

CIT v. Darshan Securities (P) Ltd.
341 ITR 556 · 2012 · High Court
27
citing judgments

A company involved in the purchase and sale of shares is deemed to be carrying on a speculative business to the extent of such transactions, unless it falls under an exception to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act.

Patnaik & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
161 ITR 365 · 1986 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

Losses arising from the sale of investments made for business purposes are treated as business losses, not capital losses.

CIT v. VGR Foundations
298 ITR 132 · 2008 · High Court
21
citing judgments

Interest earned by a company on share application money deposited in banks is taxable as income from other sources, even if the funds are intended for the business.

Snowtex Investment Limited v. PCIT
414 ITR 227 · 2019 · Supreme Court
16
citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that losses from delivery-based share trading cannot be set off against profits from derivatives trading if the principal business of the assessee is not the granting of loans and advances, as per the explanation to Section 73.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 167 · Reported
12
citing judgments

After April 1, 1989, it is sufficient to write off a debt as irrecoverable in the books to claim a bad debt deduction; it is not necessary to establish that the debt has become irrecoverable.

CIT v. HSBC Securities and Capital Market India Private Limited
208 Taxmann 439 · 2012 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 73

Rajesh Shriram Kasat, Pune vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 516/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.516/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Rajesh Shriram Kasat, The Additional Commissioner Of Pratham Bungalow, Vs Income Tax, Range-3, Pune. 37/7, Prabhat Road, Pune – 411 004. Pan: Aeapk 3449 M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri S.U.Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 25/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 04.02.2016For The Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Business Loss Of Rs.29,44,160/- Incurred By The Appellant On Purchase & Sale Of Guargum Is A Speculation Loss & It Cannot Be Set Off Against The Business Profit Of The Appellant. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That – A.The Appellant Had Paid For The Purchase Of Guargum Through Banking Channel & Therefore, Transaction Of Purchase Was A Genuine Transaction. B. The Appellant Had Taken Delivery Of The Stock Purchased As The Appellant Had Shown The Proof For Payment Of Godown Rent. C. The Purchases & Sales Were Effected Through The Commission Agent M/S.Anilkumar Manishkumar, Jodhpur.

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