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 the Nuances of Income Tax Reassessment Post-Finance Act 2021: Resetting the Clock in Tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Source Rule in International Taxation: Tax Implications for Non-Resident Service Providers
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of 'Success Fees' in International Transactions: The Nexus Doctrine: Situs of residence and...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Section 80P Deductions for Cooperative Societies
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Tax Assessments: Assessment Orders and Legal Jurisdiction
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Limitation period in tax reassessment: amended time limits prevent retrospective validation of reassessment notices under the new regime.
The document focuses on the amended reassessment regime introduced by the Finance Act 2021, highlighting the shortened limitation periods and the mandatory pre-notice procedure requiring inquiry and opportunity to be heard. It rejects administrative attempts to render earlier notices compliant with amended law via retrospective treatment, finds the 'travel back in time' theory legally impermissible, and stresses that limitation periods, pandemic-related extensions, and procedural safeguards determine the validity of reopening assessments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source rule protects payments for services used to earn income abroad from domestic taxation when characterised accordingly.
Whether aircraft maintenance and repair by a non-resident constitutes technical services is addressed by reference to the specialised expertise, regulatory and safety obligations distinguishing such services from ordinary repairs; contemporaneously, retrospective statutory amendments clarifying taxation of fees for technical services are balanced against the source rule exception, under which payments for services used to earn income abroad are not taxed domestically.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Nexus doctrine: source based taxation requires a real territorial connection to tax cross border consultancy success fees.
A "success fee" paid to a non resident for consultancy services characterized by human expertise constitutes a fee for technical services when there is a real and substantial connection between the income and India. The right to tax is allocated by the source rule: income is taxable in the jurisdiction where the economic source of payment is located. Parliamentary taxing power over extra territorial income is limited by the Doctrine of Territorial Nexus; only payments with a sufficient nexus to India are subject to tax at source obligations.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Tax exemption registration: tribunal ordered reconsideration where delay arose from bona fide reliance on provisional registration and circulars.
The Tribunal held that rejection of the final registration application under Section 80G for being time barred was improper where the Commissioner did not consider administrative circulars extending filing timelines and the trust's bona fide reliance on provisional registration; the ITAT set aside the order and directed reconsideration with an opportunity to be heard.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Arm's Length Principle enforcement: comparables, functional profiling, and admissibility of additional evidence determine transfer pricing outcomes.
Dispute concerns determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions, focusing on comparable selection, adjustments for functional differences, and functional profiling's effect on ALP reliability. The Tribunal also deals with the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal and scrutiny of changes in benchmarking approaches across assessment years, stressing contemporaneous, consistent documentation and justification for methodological changes while balancing procedural finality and factual completeness.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revisionary powers under Section 263 limited where assessment thoroughly examined transactions and no specific error is shown.
Scope of revisionary powers under Section 263 is limited where the original assessment shows a detailed examination and allowance of losses; direction for re-examination without specific findings of error prejudicial to revenue is insufficient. Transactions integral to business and carried out as hedging do not fall within the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search and seizure procedural compliance: satisfaction note requirement under section 153C governs validity of assessments.
Assessments against persons other than the searched individual require a recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer that seized assets or documents belong to that other person; absence of a satisfaction note in the searched person's file invalidates consequential assessments under the search-derived assessment provisions. Determination of the applicable assessment years hinges on whether the assessment period is tied to the date of search, the date satisfaction is recorded, or the date seized material is received, requiring harmonious construction to align enforcement with taxpayer protections.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Characterisation of cross-border payments as royalty or service fees determines withholding obligations under tax treaty and domestic law.
Characterisation of cross-border payments under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA focused on whether payments to a US non-resident constituted royalty or fees for included services under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12, whether TDS obligations arose, and whether sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could be invoked; the Karnataka High Court and ITAT concluded the payments were not royalty/fees for included services, services were rendered outside India, the payee lacked an Indian permanent establishment, and therefore withholding obligations did not arise.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Non-delegability of discretionary powers: extension of tax audit report time must be granted by assessing officer, not delegate.
The power to order a special audit and to extend the timeframe for submission of the audit report is vested in the Assessing Officer and must be exercised by that officer alone; administrative convenience cannot justify delegation to the Commissioner. An extension granted by the Commissioner, even if prompted by the AO's recommendation, is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and can render subsequent assessment orders vulnerable to being barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterization of domain registration fees requires a transfer of proprietary or use rights; mere registrar facilitation does not qualify.
Whether fees for domain name registration qualify as royalty depends on whether the registrar transfers a proprietary or right-to-use interest; a registrar acting as intermediary under its accreditation agreement that disclaims ownership and does not convey exclusive or transferable rights does not convert registration fees into royalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 80P deductions for cooperative societies hinge on membership composition, agricultural lending predominance and banking activity compliance.
The analysis examines eligibility for section 80P deductions for primary agricultural credit cooperative societies, focusing on whether their income composition, predominance of agricultural versus non agricultural advances, membership classes, bye laws, and acceptance of public deposits (with its banking implications) fall within the statutory deduction framework; prior precedents are applied to identify conditions and compliance measures societies must address.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional competence in tax assessment is essential; assessments by non authorized officers risk invalidation under procedural rules.
The dispute focuses on the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 and whether an assessment framed by an officer lacking pecuniary competence is valid; it emphasizes that compliance with jurisdictional limits and the procedural step under Section 143(2), together with principles of procedural fairness, determine the assessment's legality.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Topic Clause 111 (Bill, Old Version) Section 111 (Act, Enacted)
Terminology/Defined Term Introduces 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 Subdivision Organised 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 loss Subsection (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 loss Subsection (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 duration Subsection (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 108 Defines "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

Acts Income Tax