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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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