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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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 111 "Carry forward and set off of loss from Capital gains." 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 111 Carry forward and set off of loss from Capital gains.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The documents are two versions of Clause/Section 111 dealing with carry forward and set off of loss from "Capital gains": (i) Clause 111 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2); and (ii) Section 111 as enacted in the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1). They govern how capital losses that are not absorbed in a tax year are carried forward and set off in subsequent years. The provisions affect taxpayers realizing capital gains/losses and the tax administration in assessing carry-forward claims. Effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: the documents are framed as Clause/Section 111 under the heading "SET OFF, OR CARRY FORWARD AND SET OFF OF LOSSES" in the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025. Both texts address the treatment of losses computed under the head "Capital gains" that are not fully set off in the year of computation. The Bill (old version) expressly defines the term "unabsorbed capital loss" in its subsection (4); the enacted Section uses the phrase "loss computed under the head 'Capital gains'" without introducing the specific term "unabsorbed capital loss." Coverage: carry forward to subsequent years and the order/limitation of set off between short-term and long-term capital losses and gains; temporal limit on carry forward (eight tax years). Definitions or further explanations beyond the term "unabsorbed capital loss" (in the Bill) are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 111 (Bill, Old Version) provides a regime for carry forward and set off of "unabsorbed capital loss." Subsection (1) mandates carry forward of any unabsorbed capital loss to the subsequent tax year and directs set off as per subsection (2). Subsection (2) distinguishes between long-term and short-term capital losses: (a) long-term capital losses may be set off only against gains from transfer of other long-term capital assets; (b) short-term capital losses shall be set off against gains from transfer of any other capital asset. Sub-section (3) limits carry forward to not more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which the loss was first computed. Subsection (4) defines "unabsorbed capital loss" as loss computed under "Capital gains" not wholly set off u/s 108 for that tax year.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document. Interpretive principles indicated: the text implements a tiered set-off approach reflecting the long-term/short-term distinction and confirms temporal limitation (eight years). The express cross-reference to section 108 in the definition suggests the intended sequence: first apply intra-year set off u/s 108; residual unabsorbed loss becomes eligible for carry forward under Clause 111. Any broader policy intent (e.g., rationale for eight-year limit) is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No provisos or express exceptions are contained in Clause 111 other than the bifurcated set-off limitation between long-term and short-term losses and the eight-year temporal cap. Specific exemptions, conditions, or special cases (e.g., treatment on change of ownership, mergers, or conversions) are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Taxpayer A incurs a long-term capital loss of 1,00,000 in Tax Year 1 and has no long-term capital gains that year. In Tax Year 2, A realises long-term capital gain of 60,000 and short-term gain of 50,000. Under Clause 111, the unabsorbed long-term loss may be set off only against the long-term gain - 60,000 set off - leaving 40,000 carried forward (subject to the eight-year limit).

      • Example 2: Taxpayer B has a short-term capital loss of 80,000 in Tax Year 1 and in Tax Year 2 realises long-term capital gain of 30,000 and short-term capital gain of 20,000. The short-term loss can be set off against "capital gains from transfer of any other capital asset," i.e., against both long-term and short-term capital gains; total gains 50,000 are absorbed, leaving 30,000 for carry forward (subject to eight-year limit).

      • Example 3: If by the end of eight subsequent tax years the unabsorbed loss remains unutilised, it cannot be carried forward further under subsection (3). (Concrete facts such as exact years or taxpayer identity are Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      Clause 111 expressly references section 108 in its definition of "unabsorbed capital loss," indicating an intended sequencing relationship: first apply set-off provisions of section 108 within the year, then determine the residual unabsorbed amount for carry forward under Clause 111. Other Rules, Notifications, or Circulars that might affect computation, forms, or procedural aspects are Not stated in the document. Interaction with provisions dealing with aggregation of assets, clubbing, or transferor-transferee adjustments is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Clause 111 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version and Section 111 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      TopicClause 111 (Bill, Old Version)Section 111 (Act, Enacted)
      Terminology/Defined TermIntroduces and defines "unabsorbed capital loss" in subsection (4): loss computed under head "Capital gains" not wholly set off u/s 108.Uses phrase "loss computed under the head 'Capital gains'"; no separate defined term "unabsorbed capital loss".
      Structure and SubdivisionOrganised into subsections (1)-(4) with explicit cross-reference to "sub-section (2)" for set-off mechanism.Organised into subsection (1)(a)(i)/(ii) and (b), and subsection (2) limiting carry forward to eight years; no discrete definition subsection.
      Set-off directions for short-term capital lossSubsection (2)(b): short-term capital asset loss "shall be set off against capital gains, if any, from transfer of any other capital asset" in the subsequent year(s).Subsection (1)(a)(i): short-term capital loss "shall be set off only against the income under the head 'Capital gains' ... in respect of any other capital asset."
      Set-off directions for long-term capital lossSubsection (2)(a): long-term capital asset loss "may be set off only against capital gains, if any, from transfer of any other long-term capital asset."Subsection (1)(a)(ii): long-term capital loss "shall be set off only against the income under the head 'Capital gains' ... in respect of any other long-term capital asset."
      Carry-forward durationSubsection (3): carry forward "not being more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which such loss was first computed."Subsection (2): "No loss shall be carried forward ... for more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year for which the loss was first computed."
      Express cross-reference to section 108Defines "unabsorbed capital loss" by reference to non-absorption u/s 108.No explicit cross-reference to section 108; simply states loss as computed under the head "Capital gains".
      • Practical impact - Terminology: The Bill's explicit definition of "unabsorbed capital loss" clarifies the point at which carry forward applies (i.e., after set-off u/s 108); the enacted Section omits the defined label but retains the practical concept. This definitional clarity reduces potential ambiguity in assessing whether a loss is eligible for carry forward.

      • Practical impact - Substance: The substantive set-off rules are materially the same (short-term losses can be set off against any capital gains; long-term losses only against long-term gains) and both limit carry forward to eight years. Therefore, practical tax outcomes for most taxpayers remain unchanged.

      • Practical impact - Drafting/interpretation risk: Differences are largely drafting and labelling; however, the Bill's cross-reference to section 108 may aid interpretive disputes over the sequencing of set-off, whereas the enacted Section's omission of that explicit reference could lead to argument on whether set-off u/s 108 is a precondition - though the enacted section's language implies the same sequencing. Litigation risk is modest but present.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should ensure correct classification of capital assets as long-term or short-term for set-off eligibility; failure to apply subsection (2) accurately may lead to disallowance of set-off and demands. The Bill's defined term reduces risk of disagreement on when a loss becomes eligible for carry forward by linking it to non-absorption u/s 108.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Retain computation records demonstrating (i) application of section 108 in the year of loss, (ii) segregation of long-term vs short-term losses, (iii) subsequent-year capital gains computations showing set off, and (iv) chronology evidencing the eight-year carry-forward timeline. Specific documentary requirements or forms are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts enact a carry-forward regime for capital losses with an eight-year temporal limit; substantive outcomes for taxpayers are largely consistent across versions.
      • The Bill (old version) adds a specific defined term "unabsorbed capital loss" and links it to non-absorption u/s 108, clarifying the sequencing for set-off and carry forward.
      • Long-term capital losses can only be set off against long-term capital gains; short-term losses can be set off against gains from any capital asset.
      • No exceptions, special cases, or procedural mechanics (forms, rates, or effective date) are specified in either text; such matters are Not stated in the document.
      • Practical compliance relies on accurate classification of assets, documentation of intra-year set off u/s 108, and monitoring of the eight-year carry-forward window.

      Full Text:

      Section 111 Carry forward and set off of loss from Capital gains.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax