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 LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    Case LawsGST
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    Case LawsGST
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Case LawsIBC
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Case LawsIBC
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Case LawsGST
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Act RulesGST
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❮
❯
❯❯
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 LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Show AI Summary
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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 ➔