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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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