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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.

    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