Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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.

    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 112 "Carry forward and set off of business loss." 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 112 Carry forward and set off of business loss.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 112 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out the rule for carry forward and set off of "unabsorbed business loss" (excluding speculation business losses): such losses are carried forward to subsequent years and may be set off only against profits and gains from business or profession; carry forward is limited to eight succeeding tax years; and unabsorbed business loss takes precedence over carried forward allowances u/ss 33(11) and 45(7). Affects taxpayers carrying business losses and the Revenue. Effective date/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 112 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) purports to govern "Carry forward and set off of business loss" and interacts with section 109 (set off between heads) and with sections 33(11) and 45(7) (carried forward allowances). The clause covers loss computed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" excluding loss from speculation business. The Bill explicitly defines "unabsorbed business loss" in sub-section (4) as the portion not, or not wholly, set off u/s 109. No further definitions, thresholds or procedural rules are provided in the clause text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 112 comprises four sub-sections:

      • Sub-section (1) mandates that unabsorbed business loss (other than speculation loss) for a tax year shall be carried forward to the subsequent tax year and can be set off only against profits and gains of business or profession carried on and assessable for that subsequent year; the process continues iteratively.
      • Sub-section (2) limits carry forward to not more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which the loss was first computed.
      • Sub-section (3) prescribes priority: the unabsorbed business loss must be set off before any carried forward allowance u/s 33(11) or 45(7) is allowed to be set off.
      • Sub-section (4) defines "unabsorbed business loss" as loss under "Profits and gains of business or profession" (excluding speculation business) not wholly set off against income from any other head u/s 109 for that year.

      Interpretation

      The clause conveys a legislative intent to confine set off of certain business losses strictly to business/profession income in future years and to create a temporal cap on carry forward (eight years). The express definition in sub-section (4) signals intent to limit the operation to losses not already absorbed under inter-head set off rules (section 109). The priority rule indicates a policy choice to prefer write-down of business loss over utilisation of specified carried-forward allowances.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs in the text: exclusion of losses sustained in a speculation business. No other provisos, thresholds, or exceptions are set out. Not stated in the document: any special treatment for amalgamations, demergers, change of ownership, or continuity of business conditions. Not stated in the document: any distinction between domestic and non-resident taxpayers, or treatment where a business ceases.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Taxpayer A has a business loss of Rs. 10 lakh in Year 1 (non-speculation). In Year 2, A earns business profits of Rs. 6 lakh. Under sub-section (1), A can set off Rs. 6 lakh of the carried forward loss against Year 2 business profit; the remaining Rs. 4 lakh is carried to subsequent year(s), subject to the eight-year limit.
      • Example 2: Taxpayer B has a loss of Rs. 5 lakh in Year 1. In Year 2, B has salary income of Rs. 3 lakh but no business profit. Under the clause, the carried forward loss cannot be set off against salary; it may be carried forward to later years until business/profession profit arises or the eight-year limit expires.
      • Example 3: Taxpayer C has carried forward allowance u/s 33(11) for Year 2. If C also has unabsorbed business loss, sub-section (3) requires the business loss be set off first before utilising the carried forward allowance.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with section 109 (inter-head set off) by defining the unabsorbed loss as that not set off u/s 109. It also establishes priority vis-`a-vis carried forward allowances u/ss 33(11) and 45(7). Not stated in the document: any cross-reference to loss provisions for capital gains, specific rules for amalgamation, or to other carry-forward rules for different categories of loss (e.g., capital loss).

      Differences between Document 1 Section 112 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Document 2 Clause 112 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Definition of the loss term: The Bill (old version) expressly defines and uses the term "unabsorbed business loss" in sub-section (4) and explains that it is loss under "Profits and gains of business or profession" (other than speculation business) not wholly set off u/s 109. The enacted Section 112 does not include this definitional sub-section; it uses the phrase "loss computed under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'" without labelling it "unabsorbed business loss."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's explicit definition provides clearer labelling and may reduce ambiguity on scope; the enacted text remains substantively similar but omits the explicit definitional label that could assist interpretation and drafting of rules or guidance.
      • Order and scope of set off language: The Bill states that the unabsorbed business loss "shall be carried forward to the subsequent tax year and shall be set off only against the profits and gains of business or profession, carried on by him and assessable for that tax year, if any, computed for such subsequent tax year, and so on." The enacted Section 112 sets out at sub-section (1) that the loss shall be carried forward and "(i) be set off against the profits and gains, if any, of any business or profession carried on by him for that tax year; and (ii) if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following tax year and so on."
        • Practical impact: The substantive requirement - carry forward and set off only against profits and gains from business or profession - appears consistent in both texts. The enacted version splits the rule into two clauses (i) and (ii) describing immediate set off and further carry forward, while the Bill couples carry forward and exclusive set off more compactly. No substantive restriction beyond the Bill's language appears introduced, but the enacted text's structure may aid clarity on the iterative carry-forward process.
      • Priority rule relative to carried forward allowances: The Bill's sub-section (3) provides that the "unabsorbed business loss referred to in sub-section (1), shall first be allowed to be set off before allowing set off of any carried forward allowance u/s 33(11) or 45(7)." The enacted Section 112(3) provides the same priority in the wording: "Where any allowance of part thereof u/s 33(11) or 45(7) is to be carried forward, effect shall first be given to the provision of this section."
        • Practical impact: Both texts give set-off priority to unabsorbed business loss over specified carried-forward allowances; wording differs slightly but the allocation of priority appears unchanged in effect.
      • Temporal limit on carry forward: Both versions limit carry forward to "not more than eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year" in which the loss was first computed (Bill) / "for more than eight tax years immediately succeeding" (enacted). Wording is substantively equivalent.
        • Practical impact: No practical change.
      • Minor drafting and terminology differences: The Bill uses "subsequent tax year" and "assessable for that tax year," whereas the enacted section uses "following tax year" and "carried on by him for that tax year." The enacted version explicitly excludes "loss sustained in a speculation business" parenthetically like the Bill's "other than loss from speculation business."
        • Practical impact: Differences are drafting level and do not introduce clear substantive divergence; the enacted text's slight rephrasing may affect interpretive emphasis but not materially alter scope.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must track the quantum of unabsorbed business loss year-by-year and ensure set-off occurs only against business/profession profits in subsequent years; incorrect set-off against other heads risks reassessment. The eight-year cap mandates calendar of expiry for each loss, increasing record-keeping needs.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Maintain year-wise computation of business loss, evidence of non-speculation character, records demonstrating that no set-off u/s 109 occurred in the year of loss (so that the loss qualifies as "unabsorbed"), and records documenting priority application vis-`a-vis carried-forward allowances u/ss 33(11)/45(7). Not stated in the document: specific forms or filings required to claim carry forward.

      Key Takeaways

      • Unabsorbed business loss (excluding speculation loss) can only be set off against business/profession profits in subsequent years.
      • Carry forward is limited to a maximum of eight tax years immediately succeeding the year of computation.
      • Unabsorbed business loss takes precedence over carried forward allowances u/ss 33(11) and 45(7).
      • The Bill explicitly defines "unabsorbed business loss," clarifying that it means loss not set off u/s 109.
      • No procedural, transitional or special-case provisions are included; matters such as cessation of business, change in ownership, or cross-reference to other loss provisions are not addressed in the clause.

      Full Text:

      Section 112 Carry forward and set off of business loss.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax