Just a moment...

⚠✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Keyword Search :
AI Tools : New
Ask tax questions in natural language. Powered by AI trained on the TaxTMI legal database. Use AI Tools ➞
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
  6. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  7. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
    8. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search ❯
TEXT SEARCH:

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    Case LawsGST
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    Case LawsGST
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Case LawsIBC
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Case LawsIBC
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Case LawsGST
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Act RulesGST
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❮
❯
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Home› TMI Notes › Income Tax › Act-Rules › Category › This
      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters
      Income Tax

      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

      Print Options

      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
      Next ➔