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
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Tax Exemptions u/s 80P: The Supreme Court's Verdict on Cooperative Societies vs. Banks
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Principles of Natural Justice in Tax Litigation: Unraveling the Significance of Cross-Examination Ri...
    Circulars Income Tax
    Deadline Extension for Processing E-Filed Tax Returns: Refund Claims on Income Tax Returns
    Notifications Income Tax
    Modes of filing of ITR: Amendments to Rule 12 of the Income Tax Rules 1962
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Legal Timelines: The Impact of Incomplete ITBA Orders on Appeal Limitations.
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Thin Line Between Charity and Commerce: Amendment of Trust Deed and Compliance with S...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Changing Objectives of Registered Societies: Exemption u/s 11 and survival of the Registration u/s 1...
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Tax exemption under Section 80P clarified: cooperative societies engaged in non banking, member centric activities retain deduction eligibility.
Classification for tax concessions under Section 80P depends on an entity's functional character, regulatory oversight, and whether it engages in commercial banking. Entities that are member centric and do not perform commercial banking functions align with the legislative intent to promote cooperative societies and remain eligible for deductions; regulatory distinctions and precedents support treating non bank cooperative activity as within the exemption framework.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Cross examination rights in tax proceedings protect taxpayers when third party seized evidence is used against them.
The core issue is whether reliance on third party seized documents and an employee's statement to attribute unaccounted interest to the assessee was permissible without permitting cross examination or testing a retraction affidavit. Denial of the opportunity to confront the declarant engages principles of natural justice, and indirect evidence requires direct inquiry and corroboration before adverse tax findings can be sustained.
Circulars Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Processing of e-filed refund claims extended, allowing administrative approval for delayed non-scrutiny returns to secure refunds.
Processing of electronically filed income-tax returns with refund claims may be completed beyond prescribed time limits for non-scrutiny cases where technical problems or other non-fault causes delayed processing. Assessing officers may process such returns only after prior approval from higher tax authorities; technical support and supervisory monitoring will be provided. The relaxation excludes returns under scrutiny, returns showing or likely to show a payable demand, and returns unprocessed due to taxpayer fault.
Notifications Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Electronic filing requirements expanded: audit liable taxpayers must file digitally; senior taxpayers retain flexible filing options.
Rule 12 amendments require electronic filing for individuals and HUFs subject to audit under section 44AB, permitting filing via digital signature or electronic verification. For other taxpayers the permitted modes are digital signature, electronic transmission with verification code, or electronic filing followed by submission of Form ITR-V. Senior taxpayers are afforded additional flexibility: specified forms may be filed with digital signature, electronically with verification code, electronically with subsequent ITR-V submission, or on paper. The notification also substitutes ITR-1, ITR-3 and ITR-5.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incomplete assessment communication can delay the start of the limitation period for appeals when essential contents are not disclosed.
Incomplete ITBA order uploads do not void an assessment but may postpone the commencement of the limitation period for appeals because knowledge of decision requires understanding the essential contents; defective communication can justify extension of time even though the assessment's substantive validity remains unaffected.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Charitable status preserved where incidental surplus, trustee payments, or deed amendments further educational objectives without private benefit.
The Court analysed whether surplus generation, fee policies, deed amendments, and payments to trustees removed an educational trust's charitable purpose. It held that incidental surplus and deed changes furthering objectives do not automatically negate charitable character, and payments for genuine services do not necessarily amount to private benefit. Cancellation of registration requires proof of lack of genuineness or objective deviation; mere shortcomings or commercial elements aimed at sustainability are insufficient.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Alteration of objects: failure to notify tax authority can jeopardise a society's registered status under section 12A.
A material amendment of a registered society's objects, coupled with failure to intimate the Commissioner under rule 17B and Form No.10A, undermines the basis of registration under Section 12A; Section 12AA(3) addresses activities inconsistent with objects, whereas fundamental change in the objects themselves requires statutory intimation to preserve the original registration.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax