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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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