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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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 113 "Set off and carry forward of losses computed in respect of speculation" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      2 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 113 Set off and carry forward of losses computed in respect of speculation business.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 113 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 sets out the rules for set-off and carry-forward of losses arising from speculation business. It matters because it prescribes the restriction that such losses are to be absorbed only against profits from speculation business and provides a four-year carry-forward limit, affecting taxpayers engaged in speculative trading (including certain companies trading in shares). Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 113 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). The provision addresses the treatment of "speculation business" losses for set-off and carry-forward purposes. Definitions and explanatory notes within the text: sub-section (5)(a) contains a deeming provision for companies engaged in purchase and sale of shares of other companies; sub-section (5)(b) defines "unabsorbed speculation business loss."

      Coverage: applies to losses computed in respect of a speculation business carried on by the assessee during a tax year and to companies captured by the deeming provision, subject to carve-outs in sub-section (6).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause comprises six sub-sections. Key elements are:

      • Sub-sec (1): Any loss computed from a speculation business carried on by the assessee during any tax year shall be set off only against profits and gains, if any, of another speculation business for that tax year.
      • Sub-sec (2): The "unabsorbed speculation business loss" for any tax year shall be carried forward to the subsequent year and set off only against profits/gains of speculation business in that subsequent year, and iteratively thereafter.
      • Sub-sec (3): Carry-forward is limited to four tax years immediately succeeding the year in which the loss was first computed.
      • Sub-sec (4): The unabsorbed speculation loss shall be allowed to be set off before set-off of any carried forward allowance u/s 33(11) or 45(7).
      • Sub-sec (5)(a): A company whose business partly consists of purchase and sale of shares of other companies shall be deemed to carry on speculation business to that extent; sub-sec (5)(b) defines "unabsorbed speculation business loss."
      • Sub-sec (6): Carve-outs: the deeming in (5)(a) does not apply if the company's gross total income mainly consists of income under "Income from house property", "Capital gains", or "Income from other sources", or if its principal business is trading in shares, banking, or granting loans/advances.

      Interpretation

      The clause expresses a clear legislative intent to ring-fence speculation business losses: they are to be absorbed only against similar profits and are not available for general set-off against other heads of income. The temporal limitation of four years indicates a policy choice to provide limited relief while preventing indefinite carry-forward of speculative losses. The explicit priority rule in sub-sec (4) manifests an interpretive principle that unabsorbed speculation losses should be exhausted before other carried-forward allowances related to speculation business.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs are confined to the deeming provision in sub-sec (5)(a). Where a company's gross total income mainly arises from specified heads, or where its principal business is trading in shares/banking/loans and advances, the deeming to speculation business does not apply. No other exceptions or provisos are stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A sole proprietor undertakes intraday trading deemed speculation business and incurs a loss of Rs. 10 lakh in Year 1. That loss can be set off only against profits from speculation business in Year 1; any unabsorbed portion is carried forward up to four subsequent years to be set off only against speculation profits. (Numbers and factual posture consistent with clause language.)
      • Example 2: A company A whose primary business is manufacturing but that also buys and sells shares of other companies incurs a speculation loss to the extent of its share trading activity. That loss is an "unabsorbed speculation business loss" and is set off/carried forward per the clause unless the carve-outs in (6) apply. (Specific quantum and sequence follow the clause.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with sections 33(11) and 45(7) by prioritising set-off of unabsorbed speculation business loss ahead of carried-forward allowances under those sections. No other statutory rules, notifications, or circulars are mentioned in the text. Any further statutory interplay is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Two Provisions and Practical Impact

      • Terminology: The Act (Section 113) uses the phrase "loss, computed in respect of a speculation business" while the Bill (Clause 113, Old Version) consistently uses "unabsorbed speculation business loss" and defines that term in sub-section (5)(b).
        • Practical impact: The Bill's express definition clarifies the concept of unabsorbed loss for drafting and interpretation; the Act version omits that explicit definition, which may lead to reliance on ordinary meaning or other provisions for interpretive clarity.
      • Sequence and phrasing of carry-forward rule: The Act sets out (1) set-off only against other speculation business profits; (2) carry-forward where loss cannot be wholly set off, with iterative application; (3) four-year limitation. The Bill states these same rules but frames sub-section (2) as carrying forward "unabsorbed speculation business loss" to the subsequent year and repeating.
        • Practical impact: Substantive carry-forward and limitation periods appear the same; the Bill's language is marginally more explicit in naming the unabsorbed loss as the subject of carry-forward, aiding clarity for compliance and assessment.
      • Priority vis-`a-vis other carried forward allowances: The Act (sub-sec (4)) states "effect shall first be given to the provision of this section" where any allowance u/s 33(11) or s.45(7) related to speculation business is to be carried forward. The Bill (sub-sec (4)) states the unabsorbed speculation business loss "shall first be allowed to be set off before allowing set off of any carried forward allowance u/s 33(11) or 45(7)."
        • Practical impact: The Bill more clearly prescribes the order of set-off-explicitly prioritising speculation loss over carried-forward allowances-reducing interpretive dispute about sequencing; the Act's phrasing is similar but less prescriptive in form.
      • Definition deeming companies to carry on speculation business: Both texts have sub-section (5)(a) deeming a company that purchases and sells shares of other companies to be carrying on speculation business to that extent. The Bill places this within a broader sub-section (5) that also contains the definition of "unabsorbed speculation business loss" in (5)(b); the Act has (5) as the deeming clause only.
        • Practical impact: The Bill consolidates definitional material under one sub-section, improving textual structure and user comprehension.
      • Non-application exceptions: Both texts contain identical carve-outs in sub-sec (6) exempting the deeming rule for companies whose gross total income consists mainly of certain heads or whose principal business is trading in shares/banking/loaning.
        • Practical impact: No substantive change here.
      • Stylistic and drafting differences: The Bill uses the phrase "during any tax year" and "for the said tax year" in sub-sec (1), and more repetitive phrasing in sub-sec (2). The Act is more succinct.
        • Practical impact: Drafting style changes in the Bill provide marginally more explicit temporal markers and an express definitional provision, aiding textual clarity but not altering substantive effect.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers engaged in trading activities must identify whether their activities constitute "speculation business" and compute losses accordingly, because such losses have restricted set-off availability and a limited carry-forward window. Misclassification may lead to disallowance of broader set-off claims. The Bill's express definition of "unabsorbed speculation business loss" reduces interpretive risk when determining carry-forward subjects.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Taxpayers should maintain contemporaneous records segregating speculative trading profits/losses from other business incomes, and documents supporting the nature and extent of share trading where companies have mixed businesses, so as to establish the extent to which the deeming clause applies or does not apply under the carve-outs in sub-sec (6). The clause itself does not prescribe forms or specific documentary thresholds. (Procedures/forms: Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill ring-fences speculation business losses: set-off permitted only against speculation business profits.
      • Unabsorbed speculation business losses can be carried forward for up to four subsequent tax years only.
      • Unabsorbed speculation losses must be set off before carried-forward allowances u/s 33(11) or s.45(7).
      • Companies that purchase and sell shares of other companies are deemed to carry on speculation business to that extent, subject to carve-outs.
      • Carve-outs exclude the deeming rule where gross total income mainly consists of certain heads or where the company's principal business is share trading, banking, or lending.
      • The Bill's drafting provides greater definitional clarity (term "unabsorbed speculation business loss") and sequencing language than the Act version, improving interpretive certainty without altering substantive effect materially.

      Full Text:

      Section 113 Set off and carry forward of losses computed in respect of speculation business.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax