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 LawsGST
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Case LawsGST
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❮
❯
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    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 LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    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 LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    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 LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    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 LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    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 LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    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.

    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 115 "Set off and carry forward of losses from specified activity." 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 115 Set off and carry forward of losses from specified activity.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document is the old version of Clause 115 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (entitled "Set off and carry forward of losses from specified activity") as compared to Section 115 of the Income-tax Act, 2025. It governs the manner in which losses arising from the activity of owning and maintaining race horses may be set off and carried forward. The rule primarily affects taxpayers engaged in the specified activity (owners/maintainers of race horses) and the tax administration. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 115 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) addresses "set off, or carry forward and set off of losses" specifically for the "specified activity" defined as owning and maintaining race horses. The provision establishes the scope of set off (against income from the same specified activity only), the carry forward regime for unabsorbed losses, the temporal limit for carry forward (four succeeding tax years), and specific definitions related to stake money, loss computation, and race horses. The text provides definitions for key terms (see clause sub-section (4)).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 115 governs losses from a narrowly defined activity: owning and maintaining race horses. Key elements: (1) prohibition on setting off such losses against income other than income from the specified activity in the same tax year; (2) carry forward of unabsorbed loss to subsequent year(s), available only to be set off against income from the specified activity in the year(s) when that activity is carried on by the assessee; (3) carry forward limited to four tax years immediately succeeding the year in which the loss was first computed; (4) definitions of "income by way of stake money", "loss incurred by the assessee in the specified activity", "race horse", "specified activity", and "unabsorbed loss from the specified activity".

      Interpretation

      The text evidences a legislative intent to ring-fence losses arising from race-horse ownership - preventing cross-subsidy of other income streams with losses from this activity. Interpretive principle indicated: losses attributable to the specified activity are to be matched to income from the same activity and may be deferred for a limited period only. The clause's explicit definitions constrain the scope of losses and the class of horses/activities covered.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express exceptions beyond the stated rule are contained in Clause 115. The clause does not provide any proviso allowing cross-set off, nor any alternative treatment for amalgamations, transfer of business, or change in ownership. "Only when the specified activity is carried on by the assessee in that tax year" conditions availability of set off - effectively an operational proviso. Other exceptions: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An assessee incurs a loss of X in tax year N from owning race horses and has no stake money income in year N. Under Clause 115, the loss cannot be set off against other incomes in year N and will be carried forward as an "unabsorbed loss" to year N+1 and may be set off only against stake-money income of the specified activity in N+1, and only if the assessee carries on that activity in N+1.
      • Example 2: If the assessee carries forward the loss for four succeeding tax years and by the end of the fourth succeeding year there remains an unabsorbed amount, that unabsorbed loss cannot be further carried forward (i.e., it expires after four years).

      Interplay

      Clause 115 operates as a specific rule for race-horse activity; the document does not state how it interacts with other provisions, such as general set-off/carry-forward rules, clubbing provisions, transfer pricing, or provisions applicable on change of ownership. Interplay with rules, notifications, or circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 115 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 115 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Practical Impact

      • Placement and Wording of Prohibition on Cross-set off: - Bill (Old Version) Clause 115(1) states expressly that loss from specified activity "shall not be set off against the income, if any, from any source other than specified activity for the said tax year." - Act Section 115(1) states the converse positive rule: "Any loss incurred by the assessee in specified activity in any tax year shall be set off only against income from specified activity."
        • Practical impact: Substantively both formulations express the same limitation (losses cannot be set off against other income). The Act's positive phrasing ("shall be set off only against") may be marginally clearer for computation language; the Bill's negative phrasing ("shall not be set off against") emphasises the prohibition. No substantive change in tax outcome is apparent from wording alone.
      • Carry Forward Mechanism and Language: - Bill Clause 115(2) uses "unabsorbed loss ... shall be carried forward to the subsequent tax year and shall be set off ... only against the income from specified activity" and additionally conditions set off "only when the specified activity is carried on by the assessee in that tax year." - Act Section 115(2) describes a stepwise carry forward: if loss cannot be wholly set off under sub-section (1), it "shall be carried forward ... and (i) be set off against the income, if any, of the specified activity carried on by him for such tax year; and (ii) if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount ... shall be carried forward" iteratively.
        • Practical impact:The Act retains the Bill's substance but provides sequential mechanics (set off then carry forward) in enumerated sub-clauses. The Bill expressly conditions set off on the assessee carrying on the specified activity in that subsequent year; the Act mirrors that by requiring "income ... of the specified activity carried on by him for such tax year." Substance is equivalent; Act's structured wording clarifies operational sequence for practitioners preparing computations.
      • Temporal Limit on Carry Forward: - Both texts limit carry forward to four tax years following the year of computation (Clause 115(3) Bill and Section 115(3) Act). Wording is substantively identical.
        • Practical impact: No change; loss expiry remains the same period.
      • Definitions/Glossary Differences: - Both texts define "income by way of stake money", "loss incurred ...", "specified activity" and relate to race horses. Differences in phrasing: Bill defines "race horse" as "a horse upon which wagering or betting may be lawfully made in a horse race"; Act defines "horse race" and "race horses" separately and explicitly includes "horse race upon which wagering or betting may be lawfully made" and "horses owned and maintained by assessee for running in a horse race." - Bill includes an additional defined term "unabsorbed loss from the specified activity" absent from the Act text.
        • Practical impact: The Act breaks out terms slightly differently (introducing "horse race", "race horses") potentially aiding clarity on the subject-matter; the Bill's explicit definition of "unabsorbed loss" provides a specific label for losses carried forward in that clause. Functionally, definitions align closely; no substantive change to tax treatment is evident.
      • Stylistic and Structural Reordering: - The Act presents definitions under subsection (4) and enumerates subparagraphs (a)-(e) with slightly different ordering and labelling; the Bill uses similar subparagraphs (a)-(e).
        • Practical impact: Purely drafting/formatting differences without substantive divergence in tax consequences.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers engaged in the specified activity must ensure losses from race-horse activity are identified separately and not set off against other income streams in the same year. Risk arises if losses are erroneously set off against other income sources or carried forward beyond four years.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The text implies the need to maintain distinct records showing stake money receipts, expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for maintaining race horses (non-capital), and proof that the specified activity was carried on in subsequent years (to claim set off). The clause does not prescribe specific documentary norms or forms. Procedural requirements: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Losses from owning and maintaining race horses are ring-fenced and may only be set off against income from the same specified activity in the relevant year.
      • Unabsorbed loss may be carried forward but only to be set off against future income from the specified activity and only when that activity is carried on by the assessee in the subsequent year(s).
      • Carry forward period is limited to four tax years immediately succeeding the year in which the loss was first computed.
      • Key definitions narrow scope: "income by way of stake money", "loss incurred", "race horse", and "specified activity".
      • The clause does not state exceptions, transitional rules, procedural formalities, or interactions with other tax provisions.

      Full Text:

      Section 115 Set off and carry forward of losses from specified activity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax
      Next ➔