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
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
    Evolution of Appellate Remedies in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 356 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Appellate Remedies against Advance Rulings : Clause 389 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Evolution of Procedural Regulation in Advance Rulings under Indian Tax Law : Clause 388 of Income Ta...
    The Transformation of Advance Rulings Powers under Indian Tax Law : Clause 387 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Fraud, Misrepresentation, and the Void Ab Initio Doctrine in Advance Rulings : Clause 386 of the Inc...
    Jurisdictional Bar on Parallel Proceedings : Clause 385 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Procedure for processing applications for advance rulings in the Indian tax regime : Clause 384 of t...
    Procedural Evolution of Advance Ruling Applications : Clause 383 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Legal Insights on Vacancies and Defects in Advance Ruling Bodies : Clause 382 of Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Administrative Efficiency vs. Judicial Oversight : Clause 381 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Changing Landscape of Advance Rulings in Indian Tax Law : Clause 380 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Evolving ADR Mechanisms in Indian Taxation : Clause 379 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Set-off and Withholding of Tax Refunds : Clause 438 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245 of ...
    Change in the Interest on Tax Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 437 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Limits on Challenging Completed Assessments in Refund Proceedings : Clause 436 of Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Automatic Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 435 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Procedural and Substantive Aspects of TDS Refunds : Clause 434 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Limitation, Procedure, and Rights of Refund Claims in Indian Tax Law : Clause 433 of the Income Tax ...
    Refund Entitlement in Special Cases (Death, Incapacity, Insolvency, Liquidation, or Other Causes) : ...
    Statutory Safeguards for Taxpayer Refunds : Clause 431 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 237 of I...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appellate scope reform consolidates appealable orders, enables faceless appeals and transfers while preserving rehearing safeguards.
    Clause 356 prescribes an exhaustive list of appealable orders before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), defines "status" by cross reference, prohibits appeals where orders are passed by or with approval of authorities above Deputy Commissioner, and empowers the Board to transfer appeals between JCIT(A) and Commissioner (Appeals) with a mandated opportunity of rehearing. It formally enables a government notified faceless disposal scheme-permitting elimination of physical interface and modification of procedural provisions-and authorizes the Board to exclude specified cases or classes from the section's operation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Right of appeal to High Court preserves judicial review over advance rulings with limited condonation and streamlined procedure.
    Clause 389 grants a statutory right of appeal to the High Court against rulings or orders of the Board for Advance Rulings and certain Assessing Officer actions, mandates filing in the prescribed form and manner within a limited period, allows judicial condonation for a short additional interval, omits prior executive scheme-making and modification powers, and relies on Rule 44FA to integrate appeal procedure with jurisdictional High Court practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural autonomy for advance rulings enables the Board to set its own procedures, heightening calls for transparency and safeguards.
    Clause 388 vests the Board for Advance Rulings with broad power to regulate its own procedure, subject to the relevant Chapter, enabling the Board to prescribe filing rules, hearing modes, timelines, evidence protocols, order formats and confidentiality mechanisms, while the institutional shift from a quasi judicial Authority to an administrative Board raises concerns about explicit natural justice safeguards, transparency, consistency and the scope of judicial review.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance Rulings powers modernisation clarifies BAR's quasi judicial authority and civil court powers under reformed procedural codes.
    Clause 387 modernises the powers and status of the Board for Advance Rulings by vesting it with civil court powers to summon witnesses, compel document production, receive affidavit evidence and exercise other adjudicatory functions, and by deeming its proceedings to be judicial proceedings that attract penal consequences for perjury and related offences, while limiting the civil court status to specified purposes and aligning cross references with reformed procedural and penal codes.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Void ab initio of advance rulings: fraud or misrepresentation may nullify rulings and restore ordinary tax provisions.
    Clause 386 empowers the Board for Advance Rulings to declare an advance ruling void ab initio if found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, on representation by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or otherwise; the Act is to apply as if no ruling had been made (excluding the period the ruling was in force), and a copy of the order must be sent to the applicant and the tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional bar on parallel proceedings preserves advance rulings' exclusivity for resident applicants and prevents conflicting adjudication.
    Clause 385 imposes a jurisdictional bar barring income tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal from deciding any issue for which a resident has filed an advance ruling application; the prohibition attaches on filing and pertains only to the specific issue raised, thereby preserving the exclusivity and predictability of the advance ruling mechanism while raising interpretive questions about the definition of "issue" and the treatment of pending proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure secures binding tax guidance with hearing rights, grounds for rejection, and mandatory communication.
    Clause 384 requires the Board for Advance Rulings to forward applications to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, call for records, and after examination either allow or reject applications. Rejection must follow an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order, and orders must be communicated to the applicant and tax authorities. Mandatory exclusions include pending proceedings, fair market value determinations, and transactions prima facie designed for tax avoidance; if allowed, the Board must examine further material, hear the applicant or authorised representative, and pronounce a written ruling within the prescribed time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure: streamlined application process with prescribed form, quadruplicate filing, fee and a thirty day withdrawal window.
    Clause 383 establishes a streamlined procedure for advance rulings: applications must state the specific question and be filed in the prescribed form and manner in quadruplicate, accompanied by a prescribed fee, and may be withdrawn within thirty days. The clause retains core procedural features of the prior regime but omits transitional and legacy transfer or opt-out provisions, leaving form, fee, and certain consequences of withdrawal to subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Vacancies and defects immunity preserves validity of advance rulings to prevent collateral challenges and ensure procedural continuity.
    Clause 382 stipulates that no proceeding before, or pronouncement of an advance ruling by, the Board for Advance Rulings shall be questioned or invalidated merely because of any vacancy or defect in the Board's constitution. It applies to both procedural actions and final rulings, reflects the de facto validity principle, and is intended to secure continuity, legal certainty, and protection against collateral procedural challenges, while not extending to defects that negate jurisdiction or involve fraud or bias.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Board for Advance Rulings centralizes administrative advance rulings, prioritizing efficiency but raising independence and legal robustness concerns.
    Clause 381 mandates constitution of one or more Board for Advance Rulings by notification, each comprising two members who are serving tax officers of not below Chief Commissioner rank, nominated by the Board; the provision preserves an administrative, officer-led model akin to the existing framework and emphasizes mandatory establishment, flexibility in number and phased operationalization, while leaving nomination criteria, judicial representation, publication, and appellate design unspecified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling mechanism provides pre transactional tax certainty and access controls for cross border and GAAR related issues.
    Clause 380 defines advance ruling across five categories: rulings for non resident applicants; rulings on transactions between residents and non residents; rulings for specified resident applicants; rulings on computation of total income pending before tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal; and rulings on whether proposed arrangements are impermissible avoidance arrangements; it links applications to the Bill's procedural section and replaces the Authority with a Board for Advance Rulings, while preserving notification based resident eligibility.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Dispute Resolution Committee provides an opt-in ADR path reducing penalties and granting prosecution immunity for minor tax disputes.
    Clause 379 creates an opt in Dispute Resolution Committee to resolve minor tax disputes by allowing modification of assessment variations, reduction or waiver of penalties, and grant of immunity from prosecution, with Assessing Officers required to implement DRC directions within a prescribed short timeframe; eligibility is confined by a monetary ceiling on variations, exclusions for search/survey or international information cases, and an income threshold as reported in returns, while procedural details and disqualifications are to be prescribed in subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Set-off of tax refunds: authority to adjust refunds against outstanding dues with written intimation and time limited withholding.
    Clause 438 authorises specified tax officers to set off any refund due against sums remaining payable by the taxpayer, subject to mandatory written intimation. If assessment or reassessment proceedings are pending, the Assessing Officer may withhold the refund for a limited, time bound period, but only after recording reasons in writing and obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The clause streamlines language from Section 245, narrows discretionary grounds for withholding by focusing on pendency of proceedings, and retains procedural safeguards without specifying priority among kinds of dues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on tax refunds: prescribed entitlement and computation rules ensure compensation for delayed refunds and administrative resolution.
    Clause 437 provides a statutory entitlement to interest on delayed tax refunds, specifying commencement dates for interest based on refund source (advance tax, TCS, tax treated as paid, self-assessment, rectification or excess payment), a materiality threshold exempting trivial refunds, extension of entitlement to deductors, exclusion of periods of delay attributable to the taxpayer or deductor, additional interest for appellate or revision order-related refunds, adjustment and recovery mechanisms for varied refund amounts, and administrative resolution of disputes on excluded periods by a senior tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Finality of assessments: refund claims limited to refunds for wrongly paid or excess tax, not re litigation of settled assessments.
    Clause 436 prevents an assessee, in refund claims, from questioning or seeking review of any assessment or matter that has become final and conclusive; relief in such claims is limited to refund of tax wrongly paid or paid in excess and the provision must be read with appeal, rectification and revision mechanisms to avoid undermining corrective powers elsewhere in the statute.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Automatic refunds on appellate or statutory orders require proactive AO disbursement, subject to reassessment and annulment limits.
    Automatic refunds are mandated when appellate or other statutory orders reduce or annul tax liability, requiring the Assessing Officer to refund excess amounts without a claim, except where the Act provides otherwise. Refunds become due only after a fresh assessment when an order directs reassessment, and where an assessment is annulled the refund is limited to the excess tax paid over tax chargeable on the returned total income. The provision preserves AO obligations, exceptions for set off or stay, and separates principal refund rules from interest entitlement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    TDS refund mechanism for deductors clarifies eligibility, prescribed application procedure, and time bound AO orders.
    Clause 434 creates a statutory TDS refund mechanism allowing a deductor who, under a written agreement, bore withholding tax and later claims no deduction was legally required to apply for refund in the prescribed form; the Assessing Officer must inquire as necessary, provide the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and pass a written order allowing or rejecting the claim within the specified time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Return-based refund claims must be made through the income tax return, tying refund limitation to return filing timelines.
    Clause 433 requires that every refund claim be made by furnishing the return of income under section 263, making return filing the exclusive procedural vehicle for refund claims and implicitly tying limitation to the return filing timelines without providing express condonation or separate application mechanisms.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Refund entitlement: clubbed-income payee and authorised representatives may claim tax refunds when taxpayer cannot act.
    The clause entitles the person in whose total income clubbed income is included to claim the refund attributable to that income, and authorises a legal representative, trustee, guardian or receiver to claim or receive refunds on behalf of a taxpayer who cannot do so because of death, incapacity, insolvency, liquidation or similar cause; procedural formalities and limitation issues are left to subordinate rules and practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tax refund entitlement preserved: statutory right maintained under new bill with procedural verification by Assessing Officer.
    Clause 431 preserves a statutory right to a refund where a person satisfies the Assessing Officer that tax paid, paid on or treated as paid on their behalf for a tax year exceeds the amount properly chargeable; it covers direct payments and deemed payments (TDS/TCS, advance tax), places an initial procedural burden on the taxpayer, and mirrors Section 237 of the 1961 Act except for the shift from assessment year to tax year, with attendant implications for temporal reference, procedural integration, and ancillary issues such as interest, set offs and standards of verification.

    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