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 LawsPMLA
    PMLA and Predicate Offenses: Deciphering the Scope of Proceeds of Crime under PMLA: A Supreme Court ...
    Case LawsIBC
    Resolution Applicant's Eligibility under the IBC: A Balancing Act Between Stringent Rules and MSME P...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Pre-deposit Compliance in Appeals: Judicial Overreach by CESAT
    Case LawsSEBI
    Revisiting Shareholder Rights in Securities Law: Deciphering the Bounds of Confidentiality in Corpor...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Professional Conduct in Auditing: Exploring the Jurisdiction and Compliance in Auditor (Chartered Ac...
    Case LawsSEBI
    Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Jurisdictional Challenges and SEBI's Regulatory Framework in Securit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Governmental Policy Decisions: Tax Incentives and Public Inte...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    Case LawsIBC
    The Confluence of Insolvency and Limitation Laws: Insights from a NCLAT Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Case LawsCustoms
    A Judicial Perspective on Duty Assessment and Procedural Fairness in Customs Law: Validity of CBIC C...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Case LawsGST
    Reinforcing Fair Administrative Processes in GST Registration Cancellation: An In-Depth Case Study
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Arbitration Conundrum: Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Reassessing Tax Penalties: HDFC Bank's Challenge under the DVAT Act
    Case LawsGST
    Input Tax Credit Eligibility under GST Legislation: Time-Bound Compliance in GST ITC Cases
❮
❯
❯❯
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 LawsPMLA
    PMLA and Predicate Offenses: Deciphering the Scope of Proceeds of Crime under PMLA: A Supreme Court ...
    Show AI Summary
    Proceeds of crime: PMLA targets handling of tainted assets even where the person is not named in the predicate offence, scope narrowed for conspiracies.
    Existence of proceeds of crime is a prerequisite for an offence under the PMLA and must be derived from a scheduled offence; the PMLA reaches persons who handle, conceal or possess tainted proceeds even if not named in the predicate offence. Conspiracy under Section 120B becomes a scheduled offence only when the conspiracy aims to commit an offence already listed in the PMLA Schedule, narrowing scheduled-offence scope. Property acquired prior to the scheduled offence cannot be treated as proceeds, whereas disputed acquisitions require trial determination of their linkage to tainted funds.
    Case LawsIBC
    Resolution Applicant's Eligibility under the IBC: A Balancing Act Between Stringent Rules and MSME P...
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under Section 29A clarified; MSME exemption under Section 240A applies at plan submission stage.
    Whether a resolution applicant is disqualified under Section 29A depends on the ineligibility criteria and the timing of assessment; the operative date for eligibility is the submission of the resolution plan, and Section 240A provides an MSME-targeted exemption from certain disqualifications to protect continuity and livelihoods.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Show AI Summary
    Tax exemption registration: tribunal ordered reconsideration where delay arose from bona fide reliance on provisional registration and circulars.
    The Tribunal held that rejection of the final registration application under Section 80G for being time barred was improper where the Commissioner did not consider administrative circulars extending filing timelines and the trust's bona fide reliance on provisional registration; the ITAT set aside the order and directed reconsideration with an opportunity to be heard.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Show AI Summary
    Arm's Length Principle enforcement: comparables, functional profiling, and admissibility of additional evidence determine transfer pricing outcomes.
    Dispute concerns determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions, focusing on comparable selection, adjustments for functional differences, and functional profiling's effect on ALP reliability. The Tribunal also deals with the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal and scrutiny of changes in benchmarking approaches across assessment years, stressing contemporaneous, consistent documentation and justification for methodological changes while balancing procedural finality and factual completeness.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Pre-deposit Compliance in Appeals: Judicial Overreach by CESAT
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit requirement undermined by tribunal restoration without compliance, raising jurisdictional and laches concerns in excise appeals procedure scrutiny.
    The Tribunal's restoration and allowance of excise appeals without a prior pre-deposit requirement raises whether a lower tribunal may waive mandatory pre-deposit obligations and whether such action aligns with supervisory limits imposed by higher court directives and doctrines like functus officio and res judicata.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Revisiting Shareholder Rights in Securities Law: Deciphering the Bounds of Confidentiality in Corpor...
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder access to confidential corporate documents affirmed where confidentiality is overstretched, strengthening minority investor protections.
    Minority shareholders are entitled to access corporate documents where confidentiality claims are overstated; confidentiality and privilege cannot be used to withhold information necessary for assessing compliance with securities law. SEBI's settlement framework cannot shield material information from shareholder scrutiny; regulatory processes must balance investigatory integrity with transparency and natural justice. Non compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding norms undermines market integrity and minority rights, and settlements of serious violations require sufficient transparency to protect investor interests.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Professional Conduct in Auditing: Exploring the Jurisdiction and Compliance in Auditor (Chartered Ac...
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective jurisdiction of regulator challenged; effect on auditor liability, standards compliance and sanctions under companies law.
    Allegations of professional misconduct assert auditors failed to comply with statutory audit obligations, disclose material facts, exercise due diligence, obtain necessary information, and identify departures from accepted audit procedures. Appellants challenge the regulator's retrospective jurisdiction, invoke constitutional protection against retrospective penalization, and allege procedural breaches of natural justice; the regulator maintains jurisdiction, contends it afforded hearing opportunities, and asserts substantive non compliance with Standards on Auditing.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Jurisdictional Challenges and SEBI's Regulatory Framework in Securit...
    Show AI Summary
    Territorial jurisdiction disputes in securities cases shape venue decisions and challenge regulatory settlement revocations and discretion.
    Disputes over venue in securities enforcement pivot on territorial jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens, using cause of action and convenience factors to determine appropriate forum. SEBI's settlement regime under the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulation 2018 and the regulator's power to revoke settlements raise questions about regulatory discretion, enforceability of negotiated resolutions, and implications for corporate governance and market integrity, while High Courts' supervisory role under Article 226 intersects with statutory enforcement mechanisms.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary powers under Section 263 limited where assessment thoroughly examined transactions and no specific error is shown.
    Scope of revisionary powers under Section 263 is limited where the original assessment shows a detailed examination and allowance of losses; direction for re-examination without specific findings of error prejudicial to revenue is insufficient. Transactions integral to business and carried out as hedging do not fall within the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Governmental Policy Decisions: Tax Incentives and Public Inte...
    Show AI Summary
    Promissory estoppel prevents withdrawal of promised tax incentives for industrial units that invested in reliance on them.
    The dispute concerns whether the State could withdraw tax incentives by reclassifying areas and thereby affect units that invested relying on those incentives. Applying promissory estoppel, the court determined that promises inducing substantive investment could not be retracted to the detriment of the beneficiaries during the promised exemption period, balancing that protection against the State's public interest prerogative and subsequent structural tax reform.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    Show AI Summary
    Search and seizure procedural compliance: satisfaction note requirement under section 153C governs validity of assessments.
    Assessments against persons other than the searched individual require a recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer that seized assets or documents belong to that other person; absence of a satisfaction note in the searched person's file invalidates consequential assessments under the search-derived assessment provisions. Determination of the applicable assessment years hinges on whether the assessment period is tied to the date of search, the date satisfaction is recorded, or the date seized material is received, requiring harmonious construction to align enforcement with taxpayer protections.
    Case LawsIBC
    The Confluence of Insolvency and Limitation Laws: Insights from a NCLAT Decision
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation in insolvency: admissibility requires established debt and default and bars further merits inquiry at admission.
    Where a claim establishes debt and default and the petition is within limitation, the Tribunal's role at the admission stage is limited to admitting the corporate insolvency resolution process without undertaking an extensive merits inquiry into the underlying debt or default.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Show AI Summary
    Characterisation of cross-border payments as royalty or service fees determines withholding obligations under tax treaty and domestic law.
    Characterisation of cross-border payments under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA focused on whether payments to a US non-resident constituted royalty or fees for included services under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12, whether TDS obligations arose, and whether sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could be invoked; the Karnataka High Court and ITAT concluded the payments were not royalty/fees for included services, services were rendered outside India, the payee lacked an Indian permanent establishment, and therefore withholding obligations did not arise.
    Case LawsCustoms
    A Judicial Perspective on Duty Assessment and Procedural Fairness in Customs Law: Validity of CBIC C...
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness in customs law limits administrative conditions on provisional release, ensuring statutory discretion and fair hearing.
    The court evaluated whether the impugned Circular and order unlawfully limited the adjudicating authority's statutory discretion by imposing conditions on provisional release, and whether those measures violated principles of natural justice; it emphasised that executive instructions may supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions and that administrative actions must preserve statutory discretion and fair hearing requirements.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Show AI Summary
    Non-delegability of discretionary powers: extension of tax audit report time must be granted by assessing officer, not delegate.
    The power to order a special audit and to extend the timeframe for submission of the audit report is vested in the Assessing Officer and must be exercised by that officer alone; administrative convenience cannot justify delegation to the Commissioner. An extension granted by the Commissioner, even if prompted by the AO's recommendation, is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and can render subsequent assessment orders vulnerable to being barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization of domain registration fees requires a transfer of proprietary or use rights; mere registrar facilitation does not qualify.
    Whether fees for domain name registration qualify as royalty depends on whether the registrar transfers a proprietary or right-to-use interest; a registrar acting as intermediary under its accreditation agreement that disclaims ownership and does not convey exclusive or transferable rights does not convert registration fees into royalty.
    Case LawsGST
    Reinforcing Fair Administrative Processes in GST Registration Cancellation: An In-Depth Case Study
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in GST registration: deficient show cause notices require reconsideration and a fresh opportunity to respond.
    Cancellation of GST registration on grounds such as fraud or suppression must comply with natural justice; a show cause notice lacking specific allegations and a decision that does not consider the taxpayer's response constitutes procedural deficiency, necessitating administrative reconsideration with a reasoned notice that permits an adequate reply.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Arbitration Conundrum: Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements
    Show AI Summary
    Arbitration agreement enforceability tested against stamp duty compliance, affecting admissibility and tribunal jurisdiction.
    The central issue is whether an arbitration agreement in an unstamped instrument is enforceable, engaging the Arbitration Act, Stamp Act and Contract Act and asking if courts must examine only the existence of an arbitration clause or also its validity when stamp duty non compliance is alleged. The text contrasts lines of authority treating non stamping as either a jurisdictional bar that voids enforceability or a curable defect affecting admissibility, and highlights statutory mechanisms for stamping, impoundment, and remediation while mapping the practical consequences for arbitration access and enforcement.
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Reassessing Tax Penalties: HDFC Bank's Challenge under the DVAT Act
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty proportionality: penalties require deceptive conduct and mens rea before applying to disputed tax assessments.
    The decision analyzes penalties under the DVAT framework in relation to sales of repossessed vehicles, stressing that taxability remained unsettled and that penalties require conduct that is false, misleading, or deceptive. It highlights that mens rea is central to quasi criminal tax penalties and that proportionality and reasoned discretion are prerequisites to lawful penal levies; absent those elements, penalty imposition lacks statutory support.
    Case LawsGST
    Input Tax Credit Eligibility under GST Legislation: Time-Bound Compliance in GST ITC Cases
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit time limits require strict compliance with statutory filing conditions, not relaxation for business constraints.
    The court construes Input Tax Credit as a concession contingent on strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, holding that time-bound procedural conditions operate as substantive preconditions to claiming ITC. The non-obstante clause is given a limited operative scope and does not nullify mandatory temporal conditions; established principles of tax-statute interpretation require literal application of the scheme and adherence to filing timelines despite commercial hardships.

    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 ➔