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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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