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
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax