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
    Electronic Communication (E-Service) of Show Cause Notices on the GST Portal: Limits of Validity and...
    Electronic Credit Ledger and Revenue Protection: A Strict Construction of Rule 86A under the CGST Re...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Search, Seizure, and Total Income: Interpreting Section 153A in Light of Incriminating Material - 20...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Writ Jurisdiction and Alternative Remedies: Bypassing Statutory Mechanisms: Limits of Article 226 Wh...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) denial on Share Buybacks under GST: Furtherance of Business vs. Statutory Exc...
    Deeming Fictions and ITC Reversal: Gujarat AAAR on Mutual Fund Transactions as Exempt Supplies
    Show Cause, Don't Pre-Determine: Judicial Scrutiny of Section 74 Notices under the TNGST Act / CGST ...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Benami Attachments and the Collapse of Precedent: Tribunal's Response to the Ganpati Dealcom Review
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Dead Credits and Transitional Limits: CESTAT Larger Bench on Refund of Education and Krishi Kalyan C...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Judicially Crafted SOP: Kerala High Court on Bank Powers to Freeze Suspicious Accounts under PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Computer-Aided Scrutiny: Invalid Scrutiny Notices and CBDT Instructions: ITAT Kolkata Quashes Assess...
    Case LawsCustoms
    High Speed Diesel or Base Oil? Scientific Evidence, Expert Opinion and Tariff Interpretation under C...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Characterisation of Aircraft Leases under the India-Ireland DTAA: Operating Lease, Financial Lease, ...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Cognizance, Custody and Complaints under PMLA: The Supreme Court's Integration of BNSS and CrPC Norm...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rental of Aircraft in International Traffic: Dry Leasing and Permanent Establishment: Article 8(1) o...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    MLI, PPT and Aircraft Leasing: Operating vs. Finance Lease and PE Risk in Aircraft Leasing: Reassess...
    E-Way Bills, Expiry and Intent (Mens Rea): Reassessing GST Penalties: Reading Sections 129 and 130 i...
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Arrest, Presumption, and Proceeds of Crime: A Holistic Analysis of PMLA Bail Jurisprudence in a GST-...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Wheel Loaders under Heading 8429: From Practice to Principle: Mining Use, HSN Note...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Limits of Revisional Jurisdiction: Adequate Enquiry, Limited Scrutiny, and the Proper Use of Section...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic service of GST show cause notices must be in the prescribed portal location to ensure a real opportunity to be heard.
    Uploading an SCN only under a secondary portal compartment, rather than the primary prescribed location, does not constitute due communication; where an adverse decision is contemplated the Proper Officer must afford an opportunity of hearing, and defective electronic service that prevents participation vitiates the ensuing adjudication, permitting writ intervention to set aside and remit for proper notice and hearing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Electronic Credit Ledger blocking permitted only up to ITC actually available; negative balances and extra statutory recovery are impermissible.
    Rule 86A may be invoked only where input tax credit is actually available in the Electronic Credit Ledger at the time of the blocking order; the power permits disallowing debit equivalent to such available credit as a temporary preventive measure and does not authorize creation of negative ledger balances or serve as a recovery provision. Excess blocking beyond the ECL balance is ultra vires and recovery must proceed under the Act's substantive provisions.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessments under section 153A permit full reassessment for abated years but limit reopened completed years to incriminating search material.
    Section 153A's assessment power is search-linked: for abated years the AO may reassess total income afresh, but for completed/unabated years additions under section 153A are permissible only where specific incriminating material relating to that year is found during the search; absent such material, disturbance of a completed assessment must proceed, if at all, under sections 147-148 subject to their conditions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs appeals: High Court writs are generally restrained where a statutory High Court remedy exists and limitation lapsed.
    Where a statute provides a remedy to the High Court itself, the High Court will ordinarily decline writ intervention under Article 226 to avoid bypassing the statutory machinery; a litigant who has by his own default allowed the statutory limitation for a reference or appeal to lapse cannot ordinarily rely on Article 226 to cure that lapse, and claims of tribunal non consideration demand clear, specific, verified pleadings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Share buybacks and GST: expenses tied to buybacks are not eligible for ITC, and common ITC must be reversed.
    The authority held that shares are "securities" excluded from "goods" and "services," but section 17(3) and the Chapter V rules treat "transactions in securities" as part of the "value of exempt supply" for ITC apportionment; therefore GST paid on expenses directly related to a share buyback is not eligible as ITC under section 16(1), and common ITC attributable to both taxable operations and the buyback must be reversed using the prescribed deeming values.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mutual fund redemptions require proportionate ITC reversal under GST deeming provision; valuation set at 1% of sale value.
    A statutory deeming provision includes transactions in securities within the value of exempt supply for ITC apportionment; the Explanation to the input tax credit rules fixes the value of a security at 1% of its sale value, and redemption of mutual fund units is treated as a sale for this limited valuation purpose, requiring proportionate ITC reversal where common inputs serve both taxable operations and such investment transactions.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST extended-period proceedings require show cause notices to allege and disclose fraud or wilful misstatement.
    Extended limitation under GST is available only where the tax shortfall is "by reason of" fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression to evade tax; these are jurisdictional facts. Show cause notices must allege such conduct and disclose the material basis for that inference, and must specify proposed amounts without language of final determination. Invocation of extended limitation without these ingredients vitiates proceedings and precludes remand; authorities may pursue recovery under the normal limitation where applicable.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Benami property orders grounded on a recalled precedent must be re-adjudicated without treating that precedent as binding.
    The Tribunal held that where an adjudicatory order under the PBPTA is substantially founded on a Supreme Court judgment that has been recalled on review, that order cannot stand; the correct remedial course is to set aside and remit for de novo adjudication so the Adjudicating Authority may re-examine evidence and apply the law without treating the recalled Ganpati Dealcom decision as binding on the question of the amendments' temporal applicability.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Transition of cess credits: abolished cess balances are dead credits, not eligible for GST transition or cash refunds.
    Unutilised Education Cess, Secondary & Higher Education Cess and Krishi Kalyan Cess balances whose utilisation was limited to the same cess and whose levies were abolished became dead CENVAT credits; they were not eligible for transition under the exhaustive list in Section 140 and its Explanations, and Section 142(3) only prescribes payment in cash where refund is otherwise due under existing law, not a new substantive right to refund or a means to evade pre GST limitation.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    Bank account freezes: limited temporary freezes permitted on reasonable suspicion, with strict notice, review and three month cap.
    A narrow implied power exists for banks to impose a temporary debit freeze without prior notice when there are reasonable grounds to suspect use of an account for money laundering or cyber fraud; this power must be exercised with same day communication to the accountholder, mandatory intimation to investigative authorities with proof, a one week window for accountholder explanation and bank decision, and a maximum three month continuation absent directions from competent authorities, after which the freeze must be lifted and access to the credit balance restored.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 143(2) notices not following CBDT formats invalidate ensuing scrutiny assessments; computer generation does not cure the defect.
    A scrutiny notice that does not conform to CBDT-prescribed formats-specifically by failing to specify whether selection is for limited, complete, or compulsory manual scrutiny-is not a valid jurisdictional notice; non compliance with the binding CBDT Instruction vitiates the Assessing Officer's authority and renders any consequent scrutiny assessment void ab initio. Computer generation of the notice does not cure the defect. A pure legal challenge to such notice validity may be admitted at the appellate stage where no new facts are required.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported petroleum product: partial testing and non categorical reports cannot sustain classification as high speed diesel under tariff rules.
    Classification requires evidence addressing all IS 1460:2005 parameters or, where full conformity is lacking, a Rule 4 "most akin" analysis showing closest resemblance among candidate headings based on reliable, reasoned laboratory results and expert opinion; partial testing or non categorical reports do not suffice to support penal or confiscatory measures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leases with no purchase option and retained lessor title remain operating leases, not interest-bearing financings.
    Where aircraft lease documentation preserves legal title in the lessor, imposes a return obligation without any purchase option or residual-payment mechanism, and regulatory treatment aligns with operating-lease norms, the arrangement constitutes an operating lease; absent an enforceable transfer of ownership to the lessee at term end, lease rentals cannot be re-characterised as interest for treaty purposes merely because of lease tenure or finance-like pricing.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    PMLA complaints: BNSS imposes mandatory pre-cognizance hearing, affecting cognizance and arrest powers in money laundering cases.
    PMLA complaints are now governed by the general complaint-cognizance framework and, for complaints filed after BNSS commencement, by the corresponding BNSS provisions; the BNSS proviso requiring that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard before cognizance is mandatory, and failure to provide that opportunity invalidates the cognizance order. A scheduled predicate offence is a condition precedent to the existence of proceeds of crime and hence to PMLA liability, and once cognizance is taken, enforcement agencies' unilateral arrest powers against named accused are curtailed pending court-authorised custody.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leasing: treaty text treats rental income as taxable in the lessor's residence when aircraft form part of international traffic.
    Whether leased aircraft create a fixed place Permanent Establishment depends on the disposal test: operational control and the right to use and conduct business from the place must vest in the enterprise; mere ownership and protective inspection or repossession rights do not suffice. Profit attribution to any alleged PE requires a FAR based arm's length analysis under Article 7(2), and Article 8(1)'s express inclusion of "operation or rental" covers rental income from aircraft forming part of a fleet used in international traffic, allocating taxing rights to the State of residence.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Aircraft leasing: MLI PPT not applicable without section 90(1) notification; operating leases and Article 8(1) allocate rental tax to Ireland.
    The Tribunal ruled that Articles 6-7 of the MLI cannot be applied against the India-Ireland DTAA without a specific section 90(1) notification; alternatively, the Revenue failed to show PPT-based abuse. Contractual and regulatory analysis classified the transactions as operating leases; no fixed place PE existed in India; and Article 8(1) allocates taxing rights on rental of aircraft in international traffic to Ireland.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    E-way bill expiry alone cannot prove intent to evade tax; penalties require material indicating actual evasion.
    Expiry or non-generation of an e-way bill, by itself, does not establish intent to evade tax; penal action for movement in contravention requires material indicating diversion, mis-declaration or other indicia of tax risk. Where genuine invoices, correct particulars and evidence explaining delay exist and any fresh e-way bill is produced prior to final orders, authorities must record reasoned findings on intent; absent such material, detention, seizure and confiscation regime cannot be sustained and such misapplication is reviewable on certiorari.
    Case LawsMoney Laundering
    Show AI Summary
    PMLA bail in GST-ITC syndicate case: High Court upholds arrest validity and denies bail under twin conditions.
    The High Court held the PMLA arrest valid because the authorised officer recorded written reasons to believe and furnished written grounds of arrest; it found prima facie involvement in money laundering from corroborated banking, corporate and recorded-statement evidence establishing foundational facts of proceeds of crime; the statutory presumption applied and shifted the burden to the accused; and the mandatory twin bail conditions were not satisfied given the alleged magnitude, sophistication and continuing nature of the GST-ITC fraud, so regular bail was refused.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Wheel loaders classification: tribunal finds front end shovel loaders heading applies; no penalties without mala fide intent.
    Self propelled wheeled machines with front mounted buckets are classifiable under TI 8429 5100 as front end shovel loaders regardless of mining use; invocation of the extended period u/s 28(4) requires evidence of collusion, wilful mis statement or suppression with intent to evade duty, and long standing departmental acceptance plus full disclosure negates mala fides; misclassification or wrong exemption claim alone does not justify confiscation u/s 111(m) or penalties u/ss 114A/114AA without proof of knowingly false description or fraudulent conduct.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Income tax revisional jurisdiction: if AO investigated, PCIT must decide merits or record specific investigative failure, not remand.
    Where the Assessing Officer has conducted enquiries and accepted the assessee's explanation, the revisional authority cannot remand the assessment on a generic claim of inadequate enquiry; it must either record an abject failure to investigate with specific findings or decide the issue on merits in the revisional order and demonstrate error and prejudice.

    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