Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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 LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 110 "Carry forward and set off of loss from house property." 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 110 Carry forward and set off of loss from house property.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 110 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) provides for the carry forward and set off of unabsorbed loss from house property. It confines set-off of carried losses to future income from house property and limits carry forward to eight subsequent tax years. It affects taxpayers with losses under the head "Income from house property" and the income-tax administration; effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 110 is in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) under the heading "SET OFF, OR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSSES." The clause addresses the treatment of losses arising under the head "Income from house property." The clause contains three subsections. Subsection (1) mandates carry forward of the unabsorbed loss and restricts set-off to income from house property in subsequent years. Subsection (2) prescribes the temporal limit for carry forward ("not being more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which such loss was first computed"). Subsection (3) defines "unabsorbed loss from house property" as the loss computed under that head which has not been, or is not wholly, set off against income from any other head u/s 107 for that tax year. Context: Not stated in the document beyond the clause text. Coverage: losses under "Income from house property" only.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause applies where a loss is computed under the specific head "Income from house property" for a tax year but is not wholly set off against income under other heads in that year. Such unabsorbed loss shall be carried forward to the subsequent tax year and may be set off only against income from house property computed for that subsequent tax year. This process may be continued ("and so on") subject to the overall temporal limit. The carry-forward is restricted to a maximum of eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which the loss was first computed. The clause also supplies a definition: "unabsorbed loss from house property" means the loss under that head which has not been, or is not wholly, set off against income from any other head u/s 107 for the said tax year.

      Interpretation

      The textual intent is to limit cross-head utilization of house property losses and to preserve them for future house property income. The restriction "set off only against income from house property" indicates a legislative policy that losses originating in the house property head are to be ring-fenced to similar income streams, preventing their absorption against other types of income in subsequent years. The "and so on" phrase signals iterative carry forward until the loss is fully absorbed or the eight-year ceiling is reached. The definition in subsection (3) signals that the clause applies only where the loss remains, in whole or in part, after application of set-off rules u/s 107 for that tax year.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any specific provisos, exceptions, or special cases (for example, treatment on transfer of property, amalgamation, or conversion of business) are not included in the clause text provided. No proviso concerning modification, waiver, or alternative treatment is present.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Tax year T1 - loss from house property = Rs X; set off against other heads u/s 107 = Rs Y; residual unabsorbed loss = Rs (X-Y). In tax year T2, the unabsorbed loss Rs (X-Y) may be set off only against house property income for T2. (All numeric specifics Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 2: If after set-off in year T2 some residual loss remains, it may be carried forward to T3 and set off only against house property income in T3, continuing up to eight succeeding tax years from T1.

      Interplay

      The clause explicitly references section 107 for the definition of "unabsorbed loss from house property" - suggesting interplay with the provisions governing intra-year set-off of losses. No other Rules, Notifications, or Circulars are mentioned in the clause. Any interpretive interaction with other sections of the income tax statute (beyond section 107) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 110 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 110 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Structural wording and terminology: The Act's Section 110 (Document 1) uses the phrasing "Where for any tax year, loss computed under the head 'Income from house property' cannot be wholly set off against the income under any other head as per section 109," and specifies carry forward and iterative set-off mechanics in two subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b). The Bill's Clause 110 (Document 2) refers to "The unabsorbed loss from house property for any tax year" and defines "unabsorbed loss from house property" in subsection (3).
      • Definition provision: Clause 110 (Bill) expressly defines "unabsorbed loss from house property" in subsection (3). Section 110 (Act) does not include an explicit definition clause for that term in the provided text.
      • Reference to set-off against other heads: The Act's text explicitly references section 109 for the prior set-off rule ("as per section 109"). The Bill's clause refers to set-off u/s 107 in its definition of "unabsorbed loss" (subsection (3)). Thus each version cross-references a different section number in the provided texts.
      • Division of carry-forward operation: The Act separates the carry-forward rule and the mechanics into (1)(a) (set off only against income from house property) and (1)(b) (if not wholly set off carry forward further). The Bill states the rule in one sentence and uses "and so on" to indicate repetition; it is simpler and the iterative mechanism is not broken into discrete clauses.
      • Temporal phrasing for time-limit: Both texts limit carry forward to eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which the loss was first computed. The Act states "No loss shall be carried forward under this section for more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year for which the loss was first computed." The Bill states, "not being more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which such loss was first computed." Substantively the time-limit appears identical.

      Practical impact of each difference

      • Presence of explicit definition in the Bill: Clause 110's explicit definition of "unabsorbed loss from house property" clarifies the reference point for what may be carried forward and avoids interpretive ambiguity about whether partial set-off against other heads at the same year affects carry forward. The Act's omission of an explicit definition in the provided text may require reliance on other sections or ordinary meaning to determine the same concept, potentially creating minor drafting uncertainty.
      • Different cross-references (section 109 vs section 107): The Act's reference to section 109 and the Bill's reference to section 107 (in the definition) may reflect renumbering or a substantive difference in the set-off scheme elsewhere in the code. Practically, if the referenced section differs in content, taxpayers and departments must consult the correct cross-referenced provision to determine prior set-off rules; mismatches could cause compliance errors until clarified.
      • Drafting clarity and enforcement: The Act's division into (a) and (b) more explicitly mandates that carry-forward losses are only to be set off against house property income and that any remainder must be carried forward, reducing interpretive questions. The Bill's compact wording accomplishes the same effect but with less granular punctuation; in practice both convey the same operational outcome but the Act's structure may be marginally clearer for compliance and adjudication.
      • No substantive change to the eight-year limit: Both texts impose the same eight-year ceiling; therefore, no practical change arises on the temporal limit for carry forward.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must track the computation year of house property losses and the portion that remains unabsorbed after application of section 107 in that year, since only the unabsorbed portion qualifies for carry forward. Misapplication of set-off against non-house-property income in subsequent years would be contrary to the explicit limitation and could attract reassessment risk. Record-keeping to evidence prior-year set-off u/s 107 is essential.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Maintain clear records of yearwise computation of house property loss, particulars of set-off applied u/s 107 in the year of computation, and yearwise set-off against house property income in subsequent years showing progressive absorption. Documentation demonstrating the origin year of the loss will be necessary to enforce the eight-year limit and to support position in assessments or appeals.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 110 confines carry-forwarded house property losses to set-off only against future house property income.
      • Carry forward is permitted for up to eight tax years immediately succeeding the year of computation.
      • The clause defines "unabsorbed loss from house property" by cross-reference to set-off u/s 107 for the year of computation.
      • No exceptions, provisos, or interactions with other statutory mechanisms (beyond section 107) are specified in the clause.
      • Taxpayers must carefully document the computation and set-off chronology to comply and to preserve the ability to claim carry forward within the eight-year window.

      Full Text:

      Section 110 Carry forward and set off of loss from house property.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax