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
    Liberalizing Silver Imports: Analyzing the Impact of DGFT Notification No. 57/2023 on India's Trade ...
    Extension of the existing concessional import duties on specified edible oils up to and inclusive of...
    Levy of Export Duty on Molasses Exports
    Act RulesCustoms
    Anti-Dumping Duties: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975
    Analysis of Recent Anti-Dumping Duty Imposition on Meta Phenylene Diamine Imports from China to Indi...
    NotificationsCentral Excise
    Analyzing the Implications of Central Excise Duty Changes on Petroleum Products
    Challenges in corporate insolvency, particularly when dealing with contract terminations and arbitra...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Analyzing the Legal Dispute in Customs regarding provisional assessment: A Case of Procedural Lapses...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction u/s 80P: Navigating the Legal Labyrinth - Co-operative Societies Vis-a-vis Co-operative ba...
    Transition to the GST regime. Legal challenges posed by the GST regime on existing government contra...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal Complexities - Assessment in case of third parties post search and seizure - The pe...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Scope of compliance of the Document Identification Number (DIN) in tax communications​​.
    Supreme Court's Scrutiny of ED's Conduct: Upholding Legal Standards in Arrest and Remand Procedures
    GST: transportation of goods, the role of e-way bills, and the implications of their cancellation - ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legality of Value Enhancement for the import of goods on the basis of allegation of Under-invoicing ...
    Equality in Financial Creditor Status: The Supreme Court's Ruling in regarding the status of home bu...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Nuances of Capital vs Revenue Expenditure: The Asian Hotels Ltd. Case Analysis
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Demand based on Form-26AS information from the Income Tax Department, without pre-show cause notice ...
    Importance of transparency in corporate governance and the rights of minority shareholders
    The case of Manish Sisodia versus CBI and DoE is not just a legal battle but also a matter of signif...
❯❯
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
    NotificationsDGFT
    Show AI Summary
    Liberalizing silver imports: expanding free actual user access and enabling bullion exchange imports to boost industrial inputs.
    Amendment to import policy for silver under Chapter 71 of ITC (HS) 2022 classifies semi manufactured silver as Free on an Actual User basis for specified manufacturing sectors and permits R&D imports by government or recognised institutions; it also revises HS code treatment to allow qualified jewellers to import via a recognised bullion exchange, expanding import access beyond nominated agencies.
    NotificationsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Concessional import duties on specified edible oils extended, preserving customs and AIDC exemptions to support supply and affordability.
    Notification No. 02/2024 amends Notifications Nos. 48/2021 and 49/2021 to extend the concessional import duty treatment and the exemption from the Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess for specified edible oils, preserving customs duty relief for listed soybean, palm and sunflower oil categories to maintain lower import costs and supply continuity.
    NotificationsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Export duty on molasses imposed to secure domestic supply for ethanol blending and reduce fuel import reliance.
    A 50% export duty has been added to the Second Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, effective January 18, 2024, using the government's urgent power to levy export duties, to restrict molasses exports and increase domestic supply for ethanol production and to address sugar shortages and fuel-import dependence.
    Act RulesCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Anti-dumping duties protect domestic industry by allowing provisional and retrospective measures and circumvention checks on dumped imports.
    Anti-dumping duties under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 define anti-dumping duties, margin of dumping, export price and normal value, and set methods to determine dumping when direct comparisons are infeasible. The statute provides anti-circumvention and duty-absorption rules, permits provisional duties based on preliminary findings and retrospective duties in certain large cases, and allows conditional exemptions for consignments to export-oriented units and special economic zones.
    NotificationsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Anti-dumping duty continuation on Meta Phenylene Diamine from China preserves domestic industry protection under sunset review recommendation.
    Continuation of anti-dumping duty on Meta Phenylene Diamine from China follows a sunset review finding continued dumping and injury to the domestic industry; the government imposed differentiated per-metric-ton duties on a named Chinese producer and other exporters, including imports from other countries exported via China, to be levied for a five-year period unless earlier revoked, superseded or amended and payable in Indian currency.
    NotificationsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Special Additional Excise Duty reduction may lower government revenues and influence fuel pricing and consumption.
    Notification No. 03/2024 amends Notification No. 18/2022 by reducing the Special Additional Excise Duty on production of petroleum crude, directly altering the statutory excise rate and thereby affecting government excise revenue, oil company margins and pricing incentives, potential consumer fuel prices given other tax and market factors, and environmental consumption incentives.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Wrongful invocation of bank guarantees not upheld where arbitration covers claims; liquidator may refile under insolvency law.
    The appellate tribunal found the liquidator's claims, including allegations of wrongful invocation of bank guarantees, were encompassed by pending arbitration and upheld deletion of the concessionaire from the insolvency-era causative-misconduct application, while permitting the liquidator to file a fresh insolvency application should subsequent arbitration facts necessitate separate action.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional assessment compliance: non-deliberate document delays without revenue impact warrant nominal penalties under provisional assessment rules.
    The tribunal examined Regulation 5 penalties for delayed document submission under the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, noting absence of mala fide conduct and no revenue implication. Emphasizing proportionality, the tribunal treated non-deliberate, revenue-neutral delays as warranting a nominal sanction rather than the maximum prescribed penalty, balancing enforcement of document-submission requirements with the factual context of compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Co-operative bank classification: licensing requirement determines cooperative societies' tax deduction eligibility under section 80P provisions.
    Eligibility for deduction under Section 80P depends on whether a cooperative society qualifies as a co-operative bank, which in turn requires evaluation of statutory definitions and the regulatory requirement of licensing under the Banking Regulation Act read with the NABARD Act and state cooperative laws; classification hinges on regulatory status and banking activity rather than merely providing credit to members.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST impact on government contracts: administrative review required to address tax liabilities and update contract pricing.
    Applicability of GST to government contracts where SOR and BOQ were not updated, creating additional tax liabilities; responsibility for incorporating the new tax regime into contract pricing and the administrative duty to address resultant tax increments. The court directed a formal representation process and a reasoned administrative decision after departmental consultation, with no coercive action to be taken against the petitioner pending resolution.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interpretation of Section 153C limits third party assessment timelines to when seized materials reach the Assessing Officer.
    The Supreme Court held that, for third parties found via search and seizure, the period for which returns must be filed is measured from the date seized materials are forwarded to the relevant Assessing Officer rather than from the date of the original search. The Court read Sections 153A and 153C to avoid unduly prejudicing uninvolved third parties and to prevent excessive record-retention and procedural burden, endorsing a fair, plain-language construction aligned with legislative intent.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN compliance: omission of Document Identification Number can render tax orders procedurally noncompliant under CBDT Circular.
    The dispute focuses on whether omission of the Document Identification Number (DIN) from a substantive tax order, despite issuance of an intimation letter containing the DIN, renders the communication noncompliant with CBDT Circular No.19/2019; the Tribunal treated a DIN-less order as deficient, rejected the revenue's rectification attempts and allowed relief to the assessee, while the High Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference, underscoring strict procedural adherence in tax communications.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Arrest Procedure: strict compliance with statutory grounds required to validate arrests and remand under anti-money-laundering law.
    The validity of arrests and remand hinges on recording and furnishing written reasons for belief in the arrested person's involvement and transparent communication of grounds; remand courts must apply independent mind and cannot cure constitutional infirmities arising from defective arrests, and investigative conduct suggesting arbitrariness or abuse of process undermines lawful custody.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Intent to evade tax determines whether e way bill cancellations warrant seizure measures or minor breach penalties under GST.
    Applicability of detention and seizure provisions under the GST regime turns on the presence of intent to evade tax; where such intent is absent, the statutory scheme contemplates treatment as a minor breach subject to lighter penal consequences. Authorities must assess whether e way bill irregularities reflect inadvertent or excusable circumstances warranting penalties for non compliance rather than initiation of measures reserved for deliberate tax evasion.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs valuation integrity requires voluntary, corroborated evidence before enhancing declared import value or imposing penalties.
    Enhancement of import value and penalties for alleged under invoicing were unsupported where export declarations were unattested photocopies later rectified by the supplier, key statements under Section 108 were retracted and lacked corroboration, and contemporaneous import comparisons were dismissed without contrary evidence; therefore, voluntariness and corroborative evidence are required before altering declared value or imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Financial Creditor Status: Home buyers must receive equal treatment in IBC resolution plans irrespective of RERA remedies.
    The Court held that the statutory explanation deeming amounts raised from allottees as having the commercial effect of borrowing brings home buyers within the class of financial creditors under Section 5(8)(f) of the IBC; it disapproved any subdivision treating buyers who pursued RERA remedies as a separate subclass, finding such differential treatment to be inequitable and violative of Article 14, and directed equal treatment of allottees in resolution plan consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Renovation and consultancy expenses for hotels treated as revenue when they preserve existing assets without creating enduring capital benefits.
    Classification of renovation and related consultancy expenses turns on whether works create a new asset or an enduring capital advantage. Expenditure that preserves existing condition, maintains competitiveness, or restores assets without materially improving life or efficiency is revenue in nature. Consultancy fees aligned with such maintenance are treated as revenue expenditure rather than capital outlay.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Form 26AS reliance insufficient where no proper investigation; valuation rules and natural justice must govern service tax demands.
    Reliance on Form-26AS alone cannot sustain a service tax demand absent proper investigation and procedural consultation; valuation must follow the applicable valuation rules for works contract services with consideration of claimed abatements and any notification based relief, and invocation of the extended period of limitation requires factual basis beyond third party data or ex parte adjudication.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder access to investigation documents upheld, reinforcing transparency and minority investor rights in regulatory proceedings.
    Minority shareholders challenged alleged securities-law violations and sought access to investigation and settlement-related documents; the court found that shareholders could not be treated as outsiders and were entitled to the requested materials despite confidentiality claims, while not definitively ruling on the legality of the settlement process, stressing transparency in corporate governance and implications for application of confidentiality provisions in regulatory proceedings.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Right to speedy trial can justify bail when prolonged trial delay exists and courts must reassess bail applications.
    The matter focuses on bail principles and statutory interpretation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, questioning whether proceeds arising from an administrative excise policy constitute proceeds of crime and whether money laundering prosecution requires independent evidence distinct from a scheduled offence. Defence objections include prolonged custody, voluminous evidence, and constitutional protections for ministerial decision making. The court emphasized that bail assessments are tentative, must account for the accused's right to a speedy trial where delay is not attributable to them, and allowed liberty to re apply for bail or interim relief if trial delay or medical emergency arises, to be considered on merits.

    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