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
    Navigating the Nuances of Income Tax Reassessment Post-Finance Act 2021: Resetting the Clock in Tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Source Rule in International Taxation: Tax Implications for Non-Resident Service Providers
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of 'Success Fees' in International Transactions: The Nexus Doctrine: Situs of residence and...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Section 80P Deductions for Cooperative Societies
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Tax Assessments: Assessment Orders and Legal Jurisdiction
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Limitation period in tax reassessment: amended time limits prevent retrospective validation of reassessment notices under the new regime.
The document focuses on the amended reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act 2021, highlighting the shortened limitation periods and the mandatory pre-notice procedure requiring inquiry and opportunity to be heard. It rejects administrative attempts to render earlier notices compliant with amended law via retrospective treatment, finds the 'travel back in time' theory legally impermissible, and stresses that limitation periods, pandemic-related extensions, and procedural safeguards determine the validity of reopening assessments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source rule protects payments for services used to earn income abroad from domestic taxation when characterised accordingly.
Whether aircraft maintenance and repair by a non-resident constitutes technical services is addressed by reference to the specialised expertise, regulatory and safety obligations distinguishing such services from ordinary repairs; contemporaneously, retrospective statutory amendments clarifying taxation of fees for technical services are balanced against the source rule exception, under which payments for services used to earn income abroad are not taxed domestically.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Nexus doctrine: source based taxation requires a real territorial connection to tax cross border consultancy success fees.
A "success fee" paid to a non resident for consultancy services characterized by human expertise constitutes a fee for technical services when there is a real and substantial connection between the income and India. The right to tax is allocated by the source rule: income is taxable in the jurisdiction where the economic source of payment is located. Parliamentary taxing power over extra territorial income is limited by the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus; only payments with a sufficient nexus to India are subject to tax at source obligations.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Tax exemption registration: tribunal ordered reconsideration where delay arose from bona fide reliance on provisional registration and circulars.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the final registration application under Section 80G for being time barred was improper where the Commissioner did not consider administrative circulars extending filing timelines and the trust's bona fide reliance on provisional registration; the ITAT set aside the order and directed reconsideration with an opportunity to be heard.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Arm's Length Principle enforcement: comparables, functional profiling, and admissibility of additional evidence determine transfer pricing outcomes.
Dispute concerns determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions, focusing on comparable selection, adjustments for functional differences, and functional profiling's effect on ALP reliability. The Tribunal also deals with the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal and scrutiny of changes in benchmarking approaches across assessment years, stressing contemporaneous, consistent documentation and justification for methodological changes while balancing procedural finality and factual completeness.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revisionary powers under Section 263 limited where assessment thoroughly examined transactions and no specific error is shown.
Scope of revisionary powers under Section 263 is limited where the original assessment shows a detailed examination and allowance of losses; direction for re-examination without specific findings of error prejudicial to revenue is insufficient. Transactions integral to business and carried out as hedging do not fall within the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search and seizure procedural compliance: satisfaction note requirement under section 153C governs validity of assessments.
Assessments against persons other than the searched individual require a recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer that seized assets or documents belong to that other person; absence of a satisfaction note in the searched person's file invalidates consequential assessments under the search-derived assessment provisions. Determination of the applicable assessment years hinges on whether the assessment period is tied to the date of search, the date satisfaction is recorded, or the date seized material is received, requiring harmonious construction to align enforcement with taxpayer protections.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Characterisation of cross-border payments as royalty or service fees determines withholding obligations under tax treaty and domestic law.
Characterisation of cross-border payments under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA focused on whether payments to a US non-resident constituted royalty or fees for included services under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12, whether TDS obligations arose, and whether sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could be invoked; the Karnataka High Court and ITAT concluded the payments were not royalty/fees for included services, services were rendered outside India, the payee lacked an Indian permanent establishment, and therefore withholding obligations did not arise.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Non-delegability of discretionary powers: extension of tax audit report time must be granted by assessing officer, not delegate.
The power to order a special audit and to extend the timeframe for submission of the audit report is vested in the Assessing Officer and must be exercised by that officer alone; administrative convenience cannot justify delegation to the Commissioner. An extension granted by the Commissioner, even if prompted by the AO's recommendation, is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and can render subsequent assessment orders vulnerable to being barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterization of domain registration fees requires a transfer of proprietary or use rights; mere registrar facilitation does not qualify.
Whether fees for domain name registration qualify as royalty depends on whether the registrar transfers a proprietary or right-to-use interest; a registrar acting as intermediary under its accreditation agreement that disclaims ownership and does not convey exclusive or transferable rights does not convert registration fees into royalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 80P deductions for cooperative societies hinge on membership composition, agricultural lending predominance and banking activity compliance.
The analysis examines eligibility for section 80P deductions for primary agricultural credit cooperative societies, focusing on whether their income composition, predominance of agricultural versus non agricultural advances, membership classes, bye laws, and acceptance of public deposits (with its banking implications) fall within the statutory deduction framework; prior precedents are applied to identify conditions and compliance measures societies must address.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional competence in tax assessment is essential; assessments by non authorized officers risk invalidation under procedural rules.
The dispute focuses on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and whether an assessment framed by an officer lacking pecuniary competence is valid; it emphasizes that compliance with jurisdictional limits and the procedural step under Section 143(2), together with principles of procedural fairness, determine the assessment's legality.

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