Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Residential Status and Jurisdictional Shift in Income Tax Cases
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Scrutinizing the Genuineness of Gifts in Income Tax Law: Taxability of Gift u/s 68
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting TDS Liability u/s 194-I against Lease Payments: A Legal Analysis of Security Deposit vs...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Evaluating Jurisdictional Validity in Taxation: The Significance of Draft Assessment Orders under Se...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Breaking Down the Supreme Court's Decision on Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Balancing Sovereignty and Law: India's Treaty-Making Powers and Domestic Enforcement
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating DTAAs: A Comparative Analysis of India, Netherlands, France, and Switzerland
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The OECD Membership Puzzle: Interpreting 'Is' in Double Taxation Agreements
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Dual Life of Treaties: Understanding Their Enforcement in Indian Law
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessment Proceedings and Validity of Section 143(2) Notices: Jurisdictional Clarity and Monetary L...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unexplained Cash Deposits and Section 115BBE: Applicability of Higher Rate of Tax
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 127 of the Income Tax Act: A Case Study on Jurisdictional Transfer
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Sections 22, 23, and 24: Taxation of Notional Rental Income from House Property and Vac...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153A and Income Tax Assessments Post Search and Seizure Operations: Exploring the Role of In...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of Judicial Approach in Tax Evasion through Accommodation Entries: A Case Study
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Taxation of Cooperative Societies: A Legal Analysis of Deduction Eligibility U/s 80P
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analyzing Section 43B's Application in Service Tax Liabilities: A Legal Perspective.
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessing the Enforceability of Section 148 Notices Post-Assessee's Demise: Legal Heirs and Income T...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analyzing the Threshold for Criminal Prosecution in Cases of Non-Compliance with Income Tax Laws
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Timeliness and Validity of Charitable Trust Registrations under Section 80G: A Legal Examination
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Residential status determination can shift tax assessment jurisdiction when overseas activities do not qualify as employment.
The Tribunal examined whether the appellant's overseas activities constituted employment for residential-status purposes, applying ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis to conclude they did not. Consequently, the officer of international taxation's assumption of jurisdiction based on non resident status was improper once residential status was contested; the file should have been transferred to the territorially competent assessing officer or an authorised officer. An assessment conducted without such lawful jurisdiction was characterised as legally defective and without effect.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Genuineness of gifts requires proof of donor identity and capacity, otherwise taxability follows under assessment rules.
The High Court examined taxation of receipts treated as gifts, stressing that the assessee must prove the genuineness of gifts by establishing donor identity and the donors' capacity and creditworthiness; acceptance by lower authorities does not relieve the recipient of the burden of proof, and inadequate documentary corroboration justifies reassessment where donations are doubtful.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Advance rent characterization alters TDS obligations under Section 194-I, requiring payers to deduct tax at source.
Payments labelled as a security deposit that are contractually reduced and adjusted against periodic rent payments are treated as advance rent rather than refundable security, and thus constitute rent for TDS purposes, obliging the payer to deduct tax at source under the statutory withholding framework.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Draft assessment procedure required under law: omission invalidates assessment proceedings and denies assessee DRP objection rights.
Section 144C mandates a non-obstante, mandatory draft assessment procedure for eligible assessees, requiring issuance of a draft order, opportunity to file objections, and consideration by a three-member Dispute Resolution Panel. A foreign entity qualifying as an eligible assessee must be afforded this process; failure to issue the draft order is a substantive lapse that deprives the assessee of the DRP forum and engenders jurisdictional infirmity in any consequent final assessment, demand, or penalty. Revisionary powers do not obviate the Section 144C mandate.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DTAA incorporation: notification requirement under domestic law limits automatic treaty application across countries and clarifies temporal scope.
The decision holds that a DTAA requires a mandatory notification under Section 90(1) to be effective domestically, that provisions in a DTAA with one country do not automatically extend to other bilateral agreements without explicit amendment, and that the present-tense term "is" fixes the temporal application of treaty benefits to the date of treaty entry with India.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Most favoured nation clause interpretation guides treaty effect, subject to domestic notification requirements for implementation.
The Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause in tax treaties must be interpreted under Article 31 VCLT principles as reflecting customary international law, with subsequent agreements and state practice serving as authentic means of interpretation. Domestic implementation procedures materially affect treaty operation: comparative practices of other states cannot substitute for India's requirement of formal domestic steps, including issuance of a notification after a treaty trigger event, to assimilate treaty amendments into national law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Treaty implementation procedures determine when DTAA modifications bind taxpayers, requiring domestic notification for enforceability.
In India, DTAA modifications take effect only upon formal domestic notification, preventing automatic retroactive application of third country treaty changes and reflecting a dualist approach requiring assimilation of treaty amendments into domestic law before they bind taxpayers; by contrast, the Netherlands, France, and Switzerland rely on differing domestic mechanisms-executive decrees, parliamentary ratification, or referenda and implementing orders-that may permit retroactive application and integrate treaties into domestic enforceable law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Interpretation of "is" in tax treaties determines when OECD membership triggers treaty benefits under domestic implementation rules.
Interpretation of the term "is" in DTAAs is context-dependent: although generally present in signification, its temporal application must be determined from the treaty text and purpose. Applied to OECD membership, the operative moment for eligibility to treaty benefits depends on when the DTAA relationship produces the relevant legal consequence, and this assessment must be reconciled with the domestic requirement for legislative action or notification for treaty enforceability.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Treaty Enforcement: legislative enactment required for treaties to create domestic rights; executive negotiation alone is insufficient.
Treaties do not function as self-executing domestic law; the Union may negotiate and ratify international agreements but legislative enactment is required to create or alter domestic rights and obligations. Under the dualist approach, executive negotiation and foreign measures cannot substitute for domestic incorporation; implementing statutes and notification mechanisms are necessary for tax treaties to be recognized and applied by revenue authorities. Courts may consult treaty texts to resolve ambiguities in domestic implementing laws but cannot themselves import treaty provisions into domestic law absent parliamentary enactment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional validity of Section 143(2) notices: invalid issuance by wrong officer vitiates ensuing scrutiny proceedings.
The tribunal found that a statutory scrutiny notice issued by an officer without jurisdiction at the time of issuance was defective, and that subsequent action by another assessing officer did not cure the initial defect; jurisdictional allocation must follow administrative monetary thresholds for metropolitan corporate returns, and failure to issue a valid notice at initiation vitiates scrutiny proceedings.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Unexplained cash deposits: prospective application of higher tax rate under Section 115BBE clarified for post-amendment assessments.
The assessing process treated certain cash receipts as unexplained under Section 69A read with the higher-rate taxation provision, but acceptance of an opening cash balance and maintenance of a cash book reduced the addition; contemporaneous records are decisive. The amendment imposing a special flat tax rate on unexplained income applies prospectively and does not operate retrospectively, so its applicability depends on the assessment year.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional transfer under Section 127 can reassign assessments within the same city without prior hearing, as an administrative measure.
Jurisdictional transfer under Section 127 empowers senior tax officials to reassign cases for administrative convenience, generally requiring reasons and an opportunity to be heard; however, transfers within the same city do not require prior hearing. The tribunal found a valid transfer order centralising the matter within the same city, held the absence of prior hearing immaterial under the intra-city exception, and concluded the administrative transfer did not prejudice the assessee or invalidate the assessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Notional rental income: ownership can trigger annual value assessment with standard deduction; vacancy allowance restricted when not let.
Ownership alone can give rise to taxable annual value by way of notional rental income, with annual value for unlet properties determined by reference to expected rent and, where applicable, by a proportionate measure of property cost. From that annual value the statutory 30% standard deduction and interest on borrowed capital are deductible. Vacancy allowance is not treated as available where properties remain unlet for the entire year, and balance-sheet disclosure of property ownership can support assessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating material discovered during search permits reassessment under Section 153A, validating additional income adjustments by tax authorities.
The Tribunal applied the principle that discovery of previously undisclosed documents during a search can constitute incriminating material, thereby activating Section 153A jurisdiction to reassess income for multiple prior years. It found an undisclosed balance sheet showing ownership of properties as incriminating, and addressed related challenges - estimation of house property income, jurisdictional objections, notice deficiencies, interest levies, and natural justice claims - against the backdrop of valid reassessment under the search-linked provision.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Genuineness of transactions: accommodation entries and circumstantial evidence can defeat claimed tax exemptions without commercial substance.
Denial of exemption under Section 10(38) is justified where claims rest on paper companies and accommodation entry providers; synchronized trading, SEBI identified price rigging, and weak connection between claimants and transactions diminish the probative value of demat statements and share certificates. The legal focus is on the onus of proof, application of the preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial inferences, requiring the assessee to establish commercial substance for unsecured loans and claimed trades rather than rely solely on documentation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction under Section 80P for cooperative societies hinges on mutuality and classification as cooperative banks.
Deduction eligibility under Section 80P depends on the principle of mutuality and on whether receipts involve entities that qualify as banking companies; interest income meeting mutuality criteria may be deductible for cooperative societies, whereas interest arising from dealings with entities classifiable as banks should be treated as income from other sources. The tribunal required verification of claims and reclassification of such interest where applicable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 43B payment rule prevents deduction for unpaid service tax, altering taxable income and accounting timing.
Section 43B's payment-based rule makes deductions allowable only on actual payment; applied to service tax, unpaid service tax not remitted before the return filing due date is disallowable and may be treated as part of assessee's income, despite not being charged to profit and loss. Under mercantile accounting service tax received must be included in turnover, and legislative changes to payment schedules affect compliance timing; precedents reinforce that non-payment precludes deduction under the non-absentee payment requirement of Section 43B.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Validity of reassessment notices to deceased assessees hinges on proper service to legal heirs, else jurisdiction is lacking.
The core legal rule is that reassessment notices must be served on a living person or the legal heir; issuance to a deceased individual vitiates jurisdiction. Service on the correct person is a condition precedent to reassessment, and legal heirs have no statutory duty to inform authorities of death. Legal representative liability arises only where proceedings began during the assessee's lifetime and may be continued against successors. Courts may restrain actions taken without jurisdiction while statutory remedies remain available.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Failure to file tax returns within the prescribed time can sustain criminal prosecution despite later accepted belated returns.
The dispute focuses on prosecution under Section 276CC for failure to file returns within the prescribed time, where acceptance of a belated return and dismissal of penalty proceedings do not necessarily negate the presumption of mens rea; the accused bears the burden to rebut intentional concealment, and evidential material from searches indicating undisclosed transactions can sustain criminal proceedings.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Timeliness of Section 80G applications: application treated as timely and statutory reconsideration directed under purposive interpretation.
Timeliness of registration under Section 80G was examined with focus on statutory deadlines, the effect of provisional approval under Section 80G(5), and amendments impacting trusts that commenced activities before formal registration; interpretation emphasised purposive and harmonious construction, legislative intent, natural justice in notice and hearing, and directed reconsideration of eligibility with opportunity to submit documents.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax