Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
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
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. 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 ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search ❯
TEXT SEARCH:

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.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsGST
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Case LawsGST
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❮
❯
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Open Link
    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsGST
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Home› TMI Notes › Bills › Act-Rules › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Bills

      Structured mechanism for treatment of losses from specified businesses in Clause 114 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Comparison with Section 73A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      10 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Print Options

      Clause 114 Set off and carry forward of losses from specified business.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 114 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 73A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address the treatment of losses from specified businesses. These statutory provisions are crucial for taxpayers engaged in certain business activities, as they determine how losses can be offset against profits and carried forward to future tax years. Understanding the nuances of these provisions is essential for legal practitioners and taxpayers alike, as they impact tax planning and compliance. Clause 114 is a proposed update in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, aiming to refine the rules regarding the set-off and carry forward of losses from specified businesses. Section 73A, on the other hand, has been part of the Indian tax landscape since its insertion by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, effective from April 1, 2010. This commentary explores the objectives, implications, and practical applications of these provisions, highlighting the differences and similarities between them.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of both Clause 114 and Section 73A is to provide a structured mechanism for the treatment of losses incurred in specified businesses. These provisions ensure that losses from such businesses are not indiscriminately set off against profits from other sources, thereby maintaining a level of integrity in tax calculations and preventing potential revenue loss to the government. Clause 114 aims to align with contemporary business practices and economic realities by updating the framework for loss set-off and carry forward. It seeks to provide clarity and consistency in the treatment of specified business losses, ensuring that taxpayers engaged in these businesses can plan their tax obligations with certainty. Section 73A was introduced to address similar concerns, providing a clear framework for the treatment of losses from specified businesses u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This section was designed to promote investment in certain sectors by offering tax incentives, while also ensuring that the benefits are applied consistently across taxpayers.

      Detailed Analysis

      Clause 114 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Set-off of Losses:- Clause 114(1) stipulates that any loss computed from a specified business during a tax year can only be set off against profits and gains from another specified business in the same tax year. This provision restricts the set-off to within the same category of business, preventing cross-category adjustments.

      2. Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Losses:- Unabsorbed losses from specified businesses can be carried forward to subsequent tax years. These losses can only be set off against profits from specified businesses in future years. This ensures continuity in the treatment of losses and allows businesses to utilize losses over time.

      3. Definitions:- Clause 114(3) defines key terms such as "specified business" and "unabsorbed loss from the specified business." The definition of "specified business" refers to activities listed in Section 46, while "unabsorbed loss" refers to losses not fully set off in the current tax year.

      Section 73A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      1. Set-off of Losses:- Similar to Clause 114, Section 73A(1) states that losses from specified businesses can only be set off against profits from other specified businesses. This maintains the integrity of tax calculations by restricting set-offs within the same business category.

      2. Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Losses:- Section 73A(2) allows for the carry forward of unabsorbed losses to future assessment years. These losses can be set off against profits from specified businesses in subsequent years, with provisions for further carry forward if necessary.

      3. Reference to Section 35AD:- Section 73A specifically refers to specified businesses u/s 35AD, which includes capital-intensive sectors like infrastructure, cold chain facilities, and warehousing for agricultural produce. This linkage emphasizes the intention to promote investment in these sectors through targeted tax incentives.

      Practical Implications

      The provisions in both Clause 114 and Section 73A have significant implications for businesses engaged in specified activities. By restricting the set-off of losses to within the same category of business, these provisions prevent the erosion of tax bases through cross-business adjustments.

      This ensures that tax incentives are applied consistently and transparently. For taxpayers, understanding these provisions is crucial for effective tax planning. Businesses must maintain accurate records of profits and losses for each specified business, ensuring compliance with the set-off and carry forward rules. Failure to adhere to these rules can result in penalties and increased tax liabilities.

      Comparative Analysis

      While Clause 114 and Section 73A share similar objectives and structures, there are notable differences:

      1. Scope of Specified Business:- Clause 114 refers to "specified business" as defined in Section 46 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, whereas Section 73A refers to businesses u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This difference in scope may lead to variations in the businesses covered under each provision.

      2. Legislative Context:- Clause 114 is part of a broader effort to update and streamline the Income Tax Act, reflecting changes in the economic and business landscape. Section 73A, however, was introduced as part of specific tax incentives for capital-intensive sectors.

      3. Potential for Future Amendments:- As a proposed bill, Clause 114 may undergo changes during the legislative process, potentially altering its provisions or scope. Section 73A, being an established part of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is more stable but may still be subject to amendments through Finance Acts.

      Conclusion

      Clause 114 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 73A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, play vital roles in the tax treatment of specified business losses. By providing clear rules for the set-off and carry forward of these losses, they ensure the consistent application of tax incentives and prevent revenue loss through indiscriminate adjustments. While both provisions share similar objectives, the differences in scope and legislative context highlight the need for careful analysis and understanding by taxpayers and legal practitioners. As the Income Tax Bill, 2025, progresses through the legislative process, stakeholders should remain vigilant for potential changes that may impact the application of Clause 114.

      Full Text:

      Clause 114 Set off and carry forward of losses from specified business.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔