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
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Jurisdictional Challenges in Tax Assessments: Insights from a Recent ITAT Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    High Court Rules on the Invalidity of Reassessment Notices Issued to a Deceased Person
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Long-Term Capital Gains and Unexplained Cash Credits in Stock Transactions: A Legal Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Approach in Transfer Pricing and PE Attribution: Analysis of a Landmark Case: Legal Perspec...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Scrutinizing the Application of Mind in Tax Assessments: Examining the Role of ACIT while granting a...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS Obligations and DTAA: Clarifying Tax Jurisdiction in International Telecom Services
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Distinction Between Business Income and Deemed Income in Income Tax Assessments: Higher rate of tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT's Decision on Surplus Stock Taxation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional validity of tax notice: lack of proper jurisdiction can vitiate assessment proceedings and nullify further action.
The dominant operative point is that a valid scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) requires issuance by an officer with lawful jurisdiction determined by income thresholds and administrative instructions; failure in jurisdictional competence can render the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings invalid. Procedural fairness-specifically the opportunity to be heard-is a corollary concern, and while issues regarding additions under Section 69A and the tax effect of Section 115BBE are raised, they become academic if the initiation itself is found jurisdictionally flawed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Validity of reassessment notices: notices issued to a deceased person are void and must be directed to the correct legal entity.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void, constituting substantive illegality when directed to a non-existent person; the court emphasized that the correct legal entity must be addressed, that the legal heir's communications and filings were material, and that procedural protections and statutory reopening procedures cannot be bypassed due to administrative or IT constraints.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Long-term capital gains preserved where transaction records establish genuineness; mere broker misconduct is insufficient evidence.
The issue is whether gains from sale of low-priced shares are long-term capital gains or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The authorities suspected accommodation entries via a broker with a tainted history, but transaction documents-bills, bank payments and contract notes-were held to establish genuineness. Mere suspicion of broker misconduct was deemed insufficient without direct evidence linking the assessee to contrived entries; evidentiary standards and fair hearing obligations were decisive.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Permanent establishment attribution: precedent-driven analysis limits taxable profit allocation to where core value is created in digital services.
The principal issue is attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment for cross-border digital reservation services, requiring a fact-sensitive analysis of where core business activities and value creation occur; judicial reasoning relied on materially similar precedent to determine the appropriate share of revenue attributable to the PE, stressing that a mere business connection or digital presence does not automatically justify full profit allocation to the jurisdiction and that clear tracing of value creation is essential to avoid double taxation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Application of mind in tax approvals: inadequate ACIT scrutiny under Section 153D can invalidate assessments.
The core issue is whether the ACIT, when granting approval under Section 153D, performed a genuine application of mind by scrutinising assessment records and search material; the Tribunal and High Court found the approval lacked adequate examination, leading to inconsistencies between additions made by the assessing officer and the assessed income, and rendering the assessment unreliable. The matter was treated as factual rather than presenting a substantial question of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation: cross-border telecom payments not taxable as royalty, limiting TDS and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Payments by an Indian telecom operator to non-resident carriers for interconnectivity and capacity transfers are not to be characterised as royalty under the applicable DTAA and therefore do not attract TDS; DTAA interpretation governs characterization, Indian jurisdiction is limited over extra territorial income where the foreign entities lack a taxable presence, and retrospective amendments do not impose tax on past transactions compliant with the law at the time.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deemed income classification denied where surrendered receipts are linked to business activities, avoiding higher tax rate.
Where surrendered cash, advances and stock discrepancies identified in a survey are linked to ordinary business activities and the assessee supplies specific explanations of source and nexus, the deeming provisions for unexplained investments and unrecorded ownership do not automatically apply; accordingly the higher-rate taxation applicable to incomes classified as deemed income is inapplicable and the amounts are treated as business income for tax purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Surplus stock classification: accounting linkage to business determines treatment as business income over unexplained investment.
Classification of surplus stock found during a section 133A survey depends on its nexus with ordinary trading and documentary accounting. Where excess inventory is recorded in the stock register and credited to partners' capital account, these accounting entries indicate it forms part of regular business stock and support treatment as business income rather than unexplained investment under section 69B, affecting applicability of special tax treatment under section 115BBE.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.

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