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
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 ✕
🔎 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 LawsIncome Tax
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
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 SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 108 "Set off of losses under same head of income." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      1 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 108 Set off of losses under same head of income.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These materials compare Clause 108 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) with Section 108 as enacted in the Income-tax Act, 2025. Both provisions regulate intra-head set-off of losses, including the special rules for capital gains. The provisions affect taxpayers who realise losses and gains under the same head (notably capital gains) and the tax administration that applies set-off rules. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Chapter VII, "Set off, or Carry Forward and Set off of Losses," Income-tax Act/Bill, 2025. The clauses address intra-head set-off of losses. The text explicitly excludes "Capital gains" from the general rule in sub-section (1) and then dedicates sub-section (2) to rules for capital gains losses u/ss 72 to 90. Definitions of "short-term capital asset" and "long-term capital asset" are Not stated in the document. Cross-references: sections 72 to 90 are referenced as the computational framework for capital gains; the content of those sections is Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 108 (Old Version) contains two operative parts:

      • Sub-section (1): A general rule for the same head (excluding capital gains). If the net result from any source under any head of income (other than "Capital gains") is a loss for a tax year, the assessee may set off such loss against income from any other source under the same head for that tax year.

      • Sub-section (2): Specific rules for capital gains losses computed u/ss 72-90. Losses arising from transfer of a capital asset are classified by whether the asset is long-term or short-term and the set-off permitted differs accordingly:

        • (a) Loss arising from transfer of a long-term capital asset shall be set off only against gains, if any, from transfer of another long-term capital asset.

        • (b) Loss arising from transfer of a short-term capital asset shall be set off against gains, if any, from transfer of any capital asset.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as expressed by the text: the statute draws a distinction between capital gains and other income heads. It preserves the conventional tax treatment that long-term capital losses are more restricted - they cannot be used to offset short-term capital gains or other forms of income - whereas short-term capital losses are more freely available against gains from any capital asset. The language indicates an intent to confine cross-category set-off within the capital gains head to protect the treatment accorded to long-term capital gains (often taxed differently) while allowing short-term losses to mitigate capital gains across categories.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No provisos, exceptions, time-limits or carry-forward rules are stated in Clause 108 of the Bill. Carry-forward of unabsorbed losses, conditions for set-off in subsequent years, or special carve-outs (e.g., for specified transactions) are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Taxpayer A has, in one tax year, a loss of Rs. 100,000 on transfer of a short-term equity holding (short-term capital loss) and a gain of Rs. 80,000 on transfer of a long-term property (long-term capital gain). Under Clause 108(2)(b) the short-term capital loss can be set off against the long-term capital gain. (All numeric facts hypothetical but consistent with the text.)

      • Example 2: Taxpayer B has a long-term capital loss of Rs. 50,000 from sale of a long-term asset and a short-term capital gain of Rs. 30,000 in the same year. Under Clause 108(2)(a) the long-term loss cannot be set off against the short-term gain; it may be set off only against gains from transfer of another long-term capital asset. If no such gains exist, set-off in that year is precluded by Clause 108(2)(a).

      Interplay

      Clause 108 cross-references sections 72 to 90 as the computational framework for capital gains: the Bill contemplates that capital gains/loss computation, classification and quantum will be governed by those sections. Other interactions - for example with provisions on carry-forward and set-off across subsequent years, tax rates, or special exemptions - are Not stated in the document.

      Summary of Differences between Clause 108 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) with Section 108 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      • Structure and Wording of Capital Gains Set-off Rules
        Difference: Section 108(2) of the Act divides capital asset losses into two specific categories: (a) short-term capital asset loss set off against income from any other capital asset; and (b) long-term capital asset loss set off only against income from any other long-term capital asset. The Bill (Clause 108(2)) reverses the emphasis and frames the rule as: (a) loss from a long-term capital asset shall be set off only against gains (if any) from transfer of another long-term capital asset; (b) loss from a short-term capital asset shall be set off against gains (if any) from transfer of any capital asset.

        Practical impact: The Act's text appears to permit short-term losses to be set off against any other capital asset income (which would include both STCG and LTCG), and long-term losses only against other long-term capital income. The Bill's text expressly states the converse ordering but functionally is similar except for phrasing: Bill explicitly allows short-term losses to be set off against gains from any capital asset (including long-term), and restricts long-term losses to long-term gains only. The primary practical consequence is clarity: the Bill is explicit that long-term capital losses cannot be used against short-term capital gains, whereas the Act also contains that restriction but phrases the short-term rule as set off against "any other capital asset" which may be read the same; the Bill's framing is marginally clearer on the directional limitation for long-term losses.

      • Placement and Minor Wording Variations
        Difference: The Act uses the heading "(2) Where the net result of computation of income made for any tax year u/ss 72 to 90 in respect of-" followed by two subparagraphs (a) and (b) specifying short-term and long-term capital assets. The Bill uses "(2) Any loss, as a result of computation made u/ss 72 to 90, for any tax year, arising from transfer of a capital asset as arrived at under a similar computation made for the tax year in respect of any other capital asset being,--" followed by (a) and (b).

        Practical impact: This is a drafting difference only; the Bill's version is slightly more verbose and emphasizes that the loss is "arising from transfer of a capital asset." No substantive change in coverage is evident from the texts provided.

      • Explicit Cross-References to "Capital gains" Exclusion
        Difference: Both texts exclude "Capital gains" from clause (1) by the parenthetical "(other than "Capital gains")" when addressing set-off under the same head. There is no substantive difference here.

        Practical impact: No change; both provisions maintain capital gains as a special category requiring separate rules under clause (2).

      • Overall Substance
        Difference: There is no substantive divergence in the fundamental rule that losses under the same head can be set off against other sources within that head and that capital gains have specialized set-off rules distinguishing short-term and long-term losses. The Bill's text is slightly different in ordering and phraseology concerning which category of loss can be set off against which gains.

        Practical impact: Tax practitioners can treat the provisions as substantively aligned; however, reliance on the enacted Act (Section 108) rather than the Bill text is necessary for certainty. The practical effect on taxpayers' ability to set off capital losses appears unchanged: long-term capital losses are confined to long-term capital gains, whereas short-term capital losses may be applied against gains from any capital asset.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must correctly classify capital asset transfers as short-term or long-term (classification rules Not stated in the document) because the permissible intra-head set-off depends on that classification. Misclassification could lead to incorrect set-off, reassessment risk, or tax litigation.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Though the Bill does not prescribe records, taxpayers will need contemporaneous evidence of acquisition date, sale date, and computation of capital gains/losses (Not stated in the document as express requirements). Retention of documentation supporting holding period and computation is implied by the need to establish short-term vs long-term status.
      • Tax planning constraints: The rule restricting long-term capital losses to long-term gains limits the utility of such losses to offset short-term gains or other capital gains in the year - affecting timing strategies for disposal of assets where taxpayers seek to utilise losses against higher taxed or immediate gains.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 108 distinguishes general intra-head set-off (excluding capital gains) from specific capital gains set-off rules.
      • Long-term capital losses are limited to set-off only against long-term capital gains in the same year.
      • Short-term capital losses can be set-off against gains from transfer of any capital asset in the same year.
      • The Old Version (Bill) and the enacted Section 108 are substantively consistent; differences are primarily in ordering and phrasing.
      • The Bill does not state definitions of short-term/long-term, carry-forward rules, effective date, or administrative procedures - these are Not stated in the document.
      • Accurate classification of capital assets and maintenance of records supporting holding periods and computations are essential for correct application.
      • Absence of express exceptions or cross-year carry-forward language in Clause 108 means readers must consult other provisions (Not stated here) for such rules.

      Full Text:

      Section 108 Set off of losses under same head of income.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax