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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    Case LawsIBC
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Case LawsPMLA
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Case LawsPMLA
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIBC
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Case LawsGST
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    Case LawsGST
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❮
❯
❯❯
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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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 ➔