Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Nuances of Income Tax Reassessment Post-Finance Act 2021: Resetting the Clock in Tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Source Rule in International Taxation: Tax Implications for Non-Resident Service Providers
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of 'Success Fees' in International Transactions: The Nexus Doctrine: Situs of residence and...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Section 80P Deductions for Cooperative Societies
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Pecuniary Jurisdiction in Tax Assessments: Assessment Orders and Legal Jurisdiction
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

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

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of Section 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