Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax