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
    Distinction between Capital Gains and Business Income: Comprehensive Analysis of a Income Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Multifaceted Legal Analysis on Transfer Pricing and Tonnage Tax Scheme, Bareboat Charter, Interest...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment of Eligibility for Tax Deductions Under Scrutiny: Tribunal Upholds PCIT's Revisionary Pow...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Insight into Penalties for Procedural Lapses in Customs Documentation
    Legalities of Input Tax Credit Refunds (IGST), period of limitation and COVID-19 pandemic: A Case St...
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reversal of CENVAT Credit: A Critical Analysis of a Recent Legal Dispute
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Employee Benefits: TDS on value of accommodation provided to the employees at the rate o...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Intricacies of Unexplained Investment and Legal Recourse: A Comprehensive Analysis of a recent C...
    Navigating Legal Intricacies: Power to arrest under PMLA and compliance with CrPC
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Intricacies of Taxation on Interconnect Charges in Telecom: Unraveling the Concept of 'Use or Right ...
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    The Priority of Secured Creditors in Financial Recoveries: A Comprehensive Analysis of Central Bank ...
    Navigating the Intricacies of Seizure and Confiscation under the GST Regime: A Detailed Analysis of ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Principle of Mutuality in Taxation: A Comprehensive Analysis of a Landmark Supreme Court Decisio...
    Case LawsService Tax
    Legal Nuances in CENVAT Credit Rules and Extended Limitation Periods: A Detailed Analysis
    Case LawsService Tax
    Cenvat Credit - Input Service Distributors and the Extended Period of Limitation in Service Tax Law:...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Complexities of Gold Importation - Prohibited Goods and Redemption: An Analysis of the 2023 (8) TMI...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    A Case Study on Condonation of Delay in filing the Appeal in Indian Legal System
    Restrictions on availing Input Tax Credit (ITC) - constitutional validity of Section 16(4): A Landma...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Income Tax Reassessment Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Legal Dissection of Best Judgment Assessments in Tax Law, in the context of Sections 153A/153C in ...
❯❯
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
    Classification of property income: conversion into business income denies capital-gains relief and alters deduction eligibility.
    Where land initially held as a capital asset is developed and sold through partnership activity with a profit motive, the asset can be characterized as having undergone conversion into stock-in-trade and treated as business income; that characterization determines tax consequences by excluding capital-gains-specific deductions and reinvestment reliefs, and depends on the taxpayer's intention and the transactional pattern.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing applicability to tonnage tax scheme narrowed; tonnage-covered operations exempted from transfer pricing obligations.
    Transfer pricing provisions were held inapplicable to operations covered by the Tonnage Tax Scheme, and transfer pricing adjustments based on differential interest for a bareboat charter cum demise lease were rejected in light of prior consistent rulings. The Tribunal treated the relevant interest income and expenditure as business income, examined whether a negative lien equated to a fee-bearing corporate guarantee, and reviewed allocation principles for common interest and hire-charge adjustments between tonnage and non-tonnage activities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary power under section 263 upholds reassessment where deduction eligibility under section 80IB(11A) is lacking.
    The PCIT found the assessee ineligible for the deduction under section 80IB because operations commenced outside the period in section 80IB(11A); the original assessment accepted the deduction without examining this eligibility. The PCIT issued a show-cause and, treating the original order as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, exercised revisionary power under section 263 to quash the order and direct reassessment, the Tribunal upholding that revision was appropriate where the error was beyond mere rectification remedies.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in customs penalties: enhanced fines require adequate justification and consideration of compliance efforts by authorities.
    The legal issue concerns penalties under the provisional duty assessment regulations for delayed document submission; adjudicators must assess the limited nature of procedural lapses, consider compliance efforts where documents are produced during show cause proceedings, and apply proportionality principles. Enhanced penalties require adequate, reasoned justification, and adjudicators should determine whether a nominal penalty already imposed is commensurate with the lapse and its impact on finalizing provisional assessment and duty realization.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation exclusion for pandemic renders delayed ITC refund claims timely under CGST limitation provision, court applies notification.
    The court held that the pandemic period exclusion notification applies to computation of the limitation for refunds of unutilised Input Tax Credit arising from exports under a letter of undertaking. After assessing eligibility issues and time barred components of the ITC claim, the court found the appellate conclusion of limitation unsustainable and quashed the impugned order, applying the notification to the refund computation.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    CENVAT credit reversal: elective accounting options cannot be imposed on a taxpayer, limiting percentage-based recovery.
    Dispute concerns entitlement to reverse CENVAT credit when a manufacturer produces both dutiable and exempt goods without separate records. Rule 6(3) provides elective options for taxpayers not maintaining segregated accounts but authorities cannot impose those options on the assessee. Rule 14 and statutory recovery provisions allow recovery of wrongly availed credit, yet there is no statutory basis to mandate recovery by applying fixed percentages to the value of exempted goods; if the assessee has already reversed credit attributable to exempted production, additional percentage-based demands or penalties lack legal support.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Perquisite valuation: absence of employer concession leads to no TDS on rent-free employee accommodation under valuation rules.
    The tribunal concluded that perquisite taxation on rent-free accommodation requires a demonstrable concession by the employer; in the absence of such concession the perquisite value is nil. Although the institution is not a Central Government entity, the Revenue's invocation of Rule 3 and fixed percentage valuation was premature. The appellate deletion of the withholding demand was affirmed on the ground that no concession existed and therefore no taxable perquisite arose.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained investments deemed taxable where cancellation deeds lack civil adjudication and source credibility is unproven.
    The tribunal sustained income tax additions under the unexplained investment provision, holding that the assessee failed to prove the creditworthiness and reality of alleged fund sources for a land purchase revealed in a survey, and that registered cancellation deeds without a civil court decree do not legally negate the original transaction for tax purposes.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Power to arrest under PMLA requires recorded reasons and limits general arrest notice requirements, affecting remand review.
    Power to arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires strict recording and communication of reasons for arrest and operates through a specialized, self-contained mechanism limiting the applicability of certain general arrest notices. Judicial remand and CrPC procedures apply only to the extent they do not conflict with the PMLA; habeas corpus is available for illegal detention but is not ordinarily to be used to routinely challenge reasoned, statutorily compliant remand orders.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use or right to use: interconnect charges not treated as royalty under treaty because no transfer of use of IP.
    The core question was whether interconnect usage charges fall within royalty by virtue of conferring the use or right to use a process or equipment. The tribunal held that IUC did not amount to royalty because the telecommunications processes were standard industry practice, not proprietary or secret, and therefore did not grant a transferable right to exploit intellectual property; treaty interpretation under the DTAA controlled characterization.
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Priority of secured creditors affirmed over state tax claims under SARFAESI Act, reinforcing security interest protection in recoveries.
    The court's analysis centers on the statutory priority conferred by the SARFAESI framework for enforcement of security interests, treating secured creditors' lien-based rights as superior to government tax claims on the same charged asset and narrowing the traditional Crown Debt preference where the statutory enforcement regime specifies priorities.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure powers under GST limited to goods and material useful to proceedings, excluding currency and requiring necessity.
    The power to inspect, search and seize under Section 67 is confined to items believed to be liable for confiscation or material useful to proceedings; the statutory definition excludes money from 'goods', seizure must be necessary for GST proceedings, and items not relied upon in subsequent notice are to be returned within a limited period, reflecting a narrower interpretation of 'things' consistent with legislative intent.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Principle of mutuality: interest on clubs' bank deposits treated as commercial income and not mutuality-exempt.
    The Court analysed whether investing clubs' surplus funds in bank fixed deposits preserved the identity between contributors and beneficiaries required by the Principle of Mutuality. It found that such investments diverted funds into commercial dealings with third parties and were not applied directly for members' mutual services, thereby breaking mutuality. As a result, interest earned on those investments did not qualify as exempt mutual receipts and was treated as taxable income.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation period: requires proof of fraud or wilful suppression; mere self-assessment errors are insufficient.
    The tribunal held that invocation of the extended period of limitation for recovery of irregularly availed CENVAT credit requires affirmative grounds such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts; mere incorrect self-assessment, audit disagreement, or discovery during audit does not establish the necessary intent to evade, and therefore demands beyond the normal limitation period (except conceded amounts) could not be sustained.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Cenvat credit validity vs procedural lapses: extended limitation requires evidence of fraud or suppression to apply.
    Whether a PSU could claim CENVAT credit through its Head Office functioning as an Input Service Distributor despite documentation lapses, and whether the Department could invoke the extended period of limitation were examined. The focus is on reconciling substantive receipt of services with procedural compliance, and on the requisite showing of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts to justify extending limitation beyond the normal period; mere delay without such evidence does not suffice.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Gold importation without declaration: whether undeclared imports amount to smuggling and bar redemption under customs law.
    The petitions question whether undeclared gold imports that bypass the Green Channel constitute prohibited goods or smuggling under the Customs Act, 1962, and whether adjudicating authorities properly exercised discretion under Section 125 in confiscating goods and denying redemption, given alleged arbitrariness and inconsistent treatment.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation in land acquisition appeals hinges on whether administrative impediments amount to sufficient cause.
    Delay condonation in land acquisition appeals hinges on whether administrative or bureaucratic impediments amount to a sufficient cause rather than an excuse; courts must assess explanations case-by-case, balancing procedural discipline against substantive justice while guarding against routine tolerance of government inefficiency.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit time-bar upheld: legislative limits on ITC claims are valid, treating ITC as a conditional concession.
    The time-limit for claiming Input Tax Credit (ITC) was upheld as a permissible legislative condition: ITC is a concession contingent on statutory requirements, temporal restrictions fall within legislative competence, and business forms like proprietorships cannot invoke trade-right protections in the same manner as citizens; judicial interference in fiscal policy is limited where statutory mechanisms govern tax benefits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notice limitations restrict tax authorities when issued beyond limitation or without mandated approval or procedural defects.
    A reassessment issued after the three year limitation period and without approval from the specified authority fails statutory prerequisites and cannot sustain reassessment. Reassessment powers are limited to non disclosure or material misstatement of facts in the original assessment and do not extend to changes of opinion. TOLA 2020 does not expand substantive reassessment powers or alter approval requirements, and correct classification of expenses as capital or revenue remains central to tax consequence determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Best judgment assessment standards tightened when linked to search-and-seizure reassessments requiring documented satisfaction and DIN compliance.
    Best judgment assessment under Section 144 is examined alongside Sections 153A and 153C, stressing that invocation of Section 144 must be grounded in the legitimate scope opened by search-related reassessments. The court emphasises that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction note must be substantively supported, administrative formalities such as a Document Identification Number must be complied with, and that extensions of assessment periods require concrete evidentiary justification.

    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