Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Indian Laws
    Upholding Arbitral Autonomy: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Judicial Interference u/s 11
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Draft Assessment Order Regime: Navigating the Multi-tiered Assessment Process and Distinct Nature of...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Section 14A Amendment: Retrospective or Prospective Effect?
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax on Royalties: Navigating the Interplay between Domestic Tax Laws and Double Taxation Avoidance A...
    Case Laws Customs
    Iron Ore Exports and Refund: Assessing 'Fe' Content on WMT Basis for Duty Calculation
    Ensuring Procedural Fairness: The Importance of Proper Service of SCN in Tax Assessments
    Case Laws Customs
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case Laws Customs
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Indian Laws
Show AI Summary
Arbitral autonomy: referral courts must limit Section 11 scrutiny to prima facie existence of arbitration agreements.
The referral court's inquiry under Section 11 is limited to the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement; issues such as alleged accord and satisfaction and mixed questions of law and fact do not negate the arbitration clause and are within the arbitral tribunal's exclusive competence. Legislative intent behind the 2015 amendments supports minimal judicial interference at the appointment stage, and limitation under Section 11(6) should be confined to timeliness, leaving substantive limitation defenses to the tribunal.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Mandatory Draft Assessment Order under Section 144C preserves DRP review and invalidates final assessments issued without it.
Section 144C establishes a self-contained, multi-tiered assessment regime for international-transaction assessees in which the Dispute Resolution Panel exercises independent, enhanced review distinct from Section 144B. Framing the draft assessment order is an integral statutory step that preserves the assessee's right to challenge proposed findings; omission of that draft-stage procedure is therefore a substantive breach of the Section 144C code rather than a mere procedural irregularity. Remand under Section 153(6) does not revive assessments once the limitation periods in sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 153 have expired.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Prospective application of tax amendment preserves taxpayer expectations and limits disallowance of expenses to stated effective years.
The issue is whether the Explanation to Section 14A introduced by the Finance Act, 2022 applies retrospectively or prospectively, particularly for assessment years where no exempt income arose. The Court analysed the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, relevant precedents, and the principle that tax laws altering existing legal positions are not to be given retrospective effect unless expressly or necessarily implied. It concluded the Explanation must operate prospectively from the effective date stated in the Memorandum, maintaining taxpayer expectations and legal certainty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Taxation of Royalties: domestic law amendments cannot override DTAA interpretation; telecommunication payments not royalties.
The court held that unilateral domestic amendments to the statutory definition of royalty cannot alter the meaning of that term in a DTAA; treaty terms are to be interpreted by their plain meaning, guided by international law principles, OECD commentary, and precedents, and payments for telecommunication services or satellite transponder capacity do not qualify as royalties under the relevant DTAA.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Fe content on WMT basis determines export duty, lowering the applicable rate and enabling recovery of excess duty paid.
Assessment of iron ore export duty requires computation of Fe on a Wet Metric Ton basis by deducting moisture using the formula Iron content (as received) = Fe x (100 - M) / 100. Applying this WMT calculation against the customs notification framework that prescribes duty rates tied to measured Fe percentage results in a lower duty classification and a corresponding right to recover any excess duty paid when the measured Fe falls below the specified threshold.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Service of show cause notice: ensure proper notice and opportunity before tax orders; fresh notice and reasoned hearing required.
Proper service and transparent consideration of assessee replies are procedural prerequisites before passing tax assessment orders. Where portal non-reflection of notices and uncertainty about consideration of replies arises, the assessee is entitled to benefit of doubt. The court required that the impugned order be treated as a notice for filing a written reply within a short period, directed issuance of a fresh notice in the prescribed manner with a clear minimum notice period, mandated the assessee's appearance, and obliged the assessing officer to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a defined timeframe after valid service.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Addresses the set-off of losses under various heads of income In Clause 109 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 71 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

9 April, 2025

Contents
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Summary
Note

Note

-

Bookmark

Print

Print

Clause 109 Set off of losses under any other head of income.

Income Tax Bill, 2025

Introduction

Clause 109 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, addresses the set-off of losses under various heads of income. The provision is significant as it outlines the conditions under which taxpayers can offset losses incurred in one income category against gains in another, thereby affecting their overall tax liability. The clause is situated within a broader legislative framework aimed at refining the tax system to ensure fairness and efficiency. This commentary will dissect Clause 109, examining its objectives, provisions, and implications, and will compare it with Section 71 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with a similar subject matter.

Objective and Purpose

The primary objective of Clause 109 is to provide a structured approach to the set-off of losses incurred under different heads of income, excluding capital gains, against the income from other heads, including capital gains. This provision is crucial for taxpayers who experience losses in certain areas of their business or personal income, allowing them to mitigate those losses by reducing taxable income in other areas. The legislative intent is to create a balanced tax framework that acknowledges the variability of income streams and offers taxpayers a mechanism to manage their tax liabilities more effectively.

Detailed Analysis

1.  General Set-Off Rule:- Clause 109(1) allows losses incurred under any head of income (except capital gains) to be set off against income from any other head, including capital gains, for the same tax year. This provision is subject to specific conditions outlined in the sub-clauses.

- Condition (a): Losses under "Profits and gains of business or profession" cannot be set off against income chargeable under "Salaries." This restriction aims to prevent the reduction of taxable salary income by offsetting it with business losses, maintaining a clear demarcation between personal earnings and business operations.

- Condition (b): Losses under "Income from house property" can only be set off to the extent of two lakh rupees against income from other heads. This cap is likely intended to limit the use of property-related losses to unduly reduce taxable income from other sources.

2. Capital Gains Loss Restriction:- Losses under the head "Capital gains" cannot be set off against income under any other head. This provision ensures that capital losses are contained within their category, preventing taxpayers from using them to offset non-capital income, which could lead to significant revenue losses for the government.

Practical Implications

The practical implications of Clause 109 are multifaceted, affecting individuals, businesses, and tax professionals:

- Individuals: Taxpayers with multiple income streams must carefully manage their finances to optimize tax liability under these rules. The restrictions on setting off business and property losses against other income types necessitate strategic planning.

- Businesses: Corporations with diverse operations will need to maintain meticulous records to ensure compliance with the set-off provisions. The inability to offset business losses against salary income could affect compensation strategies for owner-managers.

- Tax Professionals: Advisers must be adept at navigating these provisions to offer optimal tax planning strategies for clients, ensuring compliance while minimizing tax burdens.

Comparative Analysis

1. General Set-Off Provisions:- Both Clause 109 and Section 71 allow for the set-off of losses under one head of income against gains under another, excluding capital gains. However, the 1961 Act includes a broader scope for capital gains, permitting offset within its category, whereas Clause 109 restricts this more stringently.

2. Specific Restrictions:-

- Profits and Gains of Business or Profession: Both provisions restrict the set-off of business losses against salary income, demonstrating a consistent legislative intent to separate personal and business income streams.

- Income from House Property: Clause 109 introduces a cap on the set-off amount (two lakh rupees), which aligns with the restrictions introduced in Section 71(3A) post-2017 amendments. This indicates a legislative trend towards limiting the use of property losses to offset other income types.

3. Capital Gains:- Section 71 permits the set-off of losses under "Capital gains" against gains within the same head, maintaining a degree of flexibility absent in Clause 109, which outright prohibits such cross-category set-offs.

Conclusion

Clause 109 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, seeks to refine the mechanisms for setting off losses across different income categories, introducing specific restrictions to prevent undue tax avoidance. Its provisions reflect an evolution from the framework established by Section 71 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, incorporating lessons from past legislative amendments and contemporary tax policy objectives. While the clause aims to ensure a fair and balanced tax system, its practical implementation will require careful navigation by taxpayers and their advisers. Future developments may focus on further clarifying these provisions or adjusting them in response to economic and fiscal needs.


Full Text:

Clause 109 Set off of losses under any other head of income.

Topics

Acts Income Tax