Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post a Query
Post a New Query
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Discussion Forum

Back

All Issues

WhatsAppJoin Channel
Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
OR
Search by Issue ID:
NOTE: If you have inputs in both the fields, then results will be shown for issueId first.
Issue ID: 2663
Like 0Bookmark

Allowability of c/f / set-off loss u/s 10 (38) / 10 (34)

Date 19 Jan 2011
Replies1 Reply
Views 1880 Views
Loss under section 10(38) may be set off against taxable long-term capital gains and carried forward.
Losses arising under the tax-exempt capital gains head, notably long-term capital losses in transactions subject to securities transaction tax, can be set off against taxable long-term capital gains and, if not fully absorbed, carried forward for such set off in future years. (AI Summary)

I had read an intresting article from one of TMI members on Allowability of loss u/s 10 (38) quite some time back almost one & half year back. In the article, it was mentioned that the loss u/s 10 (38) could be c/f/ set-off.

In the same article a judgement of the Supreme Court (not sure on the authority), involving loss on sale of UTI units was mentioned (u/s 10 (34)). 

The authority had ruled in the favour of the assessee. One of the grounds was that the intention of the government was not to burden the assessee by introducing such a provision.

Unfortunately, i cannot locate that article nor the case in my records or the website.

I would be very thankful if anyone can provide me with that case Citation or the article.

1 answers
Sort by

Old Query - New Comments are closed.

Hide
Recent Issues