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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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