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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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