Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
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
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. 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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 118 "Carry forward and set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation in business reorganisation of co-operative banks." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      2 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 118 Carry forward and set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation in business reorganisation of co-operative banks.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 118 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 proposes rules for carry forward and set off of accumulated business losses and unabsorbed depreciation on amalgamation and demerger of co-operative banks. It affects successor, amalgamating, demerged and resulting co-operative banks, and sets eligibility conditions relating to prior banking activity, fixed asset holding thresholds and continuity of business. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 118 (Bill) sits within the set-off and carry-forward framework of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and cross-refers to section 112 for the concept of losses and to section 65 for defined words concerning amalgamation/demerger/business reorganisation. The clause covers two principal events: amalgamation (where a successor bank may set-off predecessor losses) and demerger (where losses/depreciation directly or not directly relatable to transferred undertakings are treated differently). Definitions provided in the clause include "accumulated business loss", "unabsorbed depreciation" and cross-references for terms like "amalgamation" and "demerger".

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 118 applies where a co-operative bank undergoes business reorganisation by amalgamation or demerger during a tax year. Key textual elements:

      • Amalgamation (sub-s. (1)): Where amalgamation occurs during the tax year, the accumulated business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of the predecessor bank may be set off against the income of the successor bank for that tax year "as if the business reorganisation had not taken place", with all other set-off/carry-forward and depreciation rules of the Act applying accordingly.
      • Demerger (sub-s. (2)): If demerger occurs during the tax year-(a) losses/depreciation directly relatable to the transferred undertaking follow the undertaking to the resulting bank in full; (b) where not directly relatable, losses/depreciation must first be apportioned between demerged and resulting banks in proportion to asset distribution and then carried forward and set off against their respective incomes.
      • Carry-forward limitation (sub-s. (3)): The accumulated loss may be carried forward only up to eight tax years immediately succeeding the tax year in which such loss was first computed in the hands of the predecessor-in-business.
      • Eligibility conditions (sub-s. (4)): Conditions on predecessor and successor banks: predecessor engaged in banking for >=3 years and holding >=3/4 of book value of fixed assets continuously for two years prior to reorganisation; successor to hold >=3/4 of book value of predecessor's fixed assets for five years immediately succeeding reorganisation, continue the predecessor's business for minimum five years, and "fulfil such other conditions, as prescribed".
      • Executive power (sub-s. (5)): Central Government may, by notification, specify other conditions (excluding those in sub-s. (4)(b)(iii)) to ensure genuineness of the reorganisation.
      • Consequence of non-compliance (sub-s. (6)): If prescribed/notified conditions are not complied with, set-off of accumulated business loss or unabsorbed depreciation made in any tax year in the hands of the successor bank shall be deemed income of the successor bank chargeable to tax for the year of non-compliance.
      • Treated periods (sub-s. (7)): The tax year is split into two deemed different tax years for set-off/carry-forward purposes across the date of reorganisation.
      • Definitions (sub-s. (8)): Defines "accumulated business loss", cross-references meanings in s.65, and defines "unabsorbed depreciation" for the section's purposes.

      Interpretation

      The clause manifests legislative intent to preserve tax continuity on business reorganisation of co-operative banks: losses and unabsorbed depreciation follow the business (or the undertaking) subject to qualifying conditions intended to prevent opportunistic tax planning. The clause frames the relief "as if the business reorganisation had not taken place", signalling a substantive carry-over approach rather than fresh computation. The eight-year carry-forward cap indicates a temporal limitation on utilisation of predecessor losses.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any specific carve-outs for particular types of co-operative banks, transitional provisions, or special rules for cross-border elements. The clause does provide exceptions by way of conditions: failure to comply with prescribed/notified conditions converts set-off into taxable income in the year of non-compliance.

      Illustrations

      • Illustration 1: A predecessor co-operative bank computes a loss in Year 1 and is amalgamated with a successor bank in Year 3. Under sub-s. (1), the successor may set off that accumulated business loss against its income for the amalgamation year as if amalgamation had not occurred, subject to the other provisions of the Act and eligibility conditions. (No numerical computation provided in the text.)
      • Illustration 2: A demerger occurs where some losses are directly attributable to a transferred undertaking; per sub-s. (2)(a) the entire directly relatable loss goes to the resulting co-operative bank to carry forward and set off. (No allocation mechanics beyond asset-proportional apportionment for non-directly relatable losses are specified.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with section 112 (referenced for computation/carry-forward entitlement) and section 65 (definitions for amalgamation/demerger). It also contemplates subordinate legislation ("prescribed" conditions and Central Government notifications). No mention is made of interplay with other specific notifications, rules, or circulars in the document.

      Differences & Practical Impact

      This section identifies textual differences between Section 118 (as enacted in the Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 118 (Old Version) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and summarises the practical impact of each change. All comparisons are limited to the two provided documents.

      • Terminology - "tax year" vs "previous year"/"tax year": The enacted Section 118 (Document 1) uses the phrase "in a case where the amalgamation has taken place during the previous year" in sub-section (1), while Clause 118 (Old Version, Document 2) uses "where amalgamation takes place during the tax year".
        • Practical impact: Potential interpretive variance as "previous year" is the statutory term generally used in income-tax law; "tax year" could be read differently. The Bill (old) consistently refers to "tax year" whereas the enacted section mixes "previous year" (s.118(1)) and "tax year" elsewhere; this may affect timing and computation of losses unless harmonised elsewhere.
      • Eight-year carry forward limit: Clause 118 (Old Version) contains an express eight-tax-year limitation on carrying forward accumulated loss (sub-section (3)). The enacted Section 118 (Document 1) omits this eight-year limitation entirely.
        • Practical impact: Removing the explicit eight-year cap in the enacted text potentially allows carry forward beyond eight years, subject to other provisions of the Act; this is a materially favourable change for successor banks compared with the Bill (old) if no other limiting provision applies.
      • Placement and numbering of defined terms: Clause 118 (Old Version) places definitions in sub-section (8) with the label "In this section,--" and defines "accumulated business loss"; the enacted Section 118 uses sub-section (7) labelled "For the purposes of this section, --" and defines "accumulated loss", "unabsorbed depreciation", and cross-refers to meanings in section 65.
        • Practical impact: Substantively the enacted text changes the defined phrase "accumulated business loss" to "accumulated loss" and reorders/wordsmiths the definitions; the practical effect is terminological but not necessarily substantive unless other provisions in the Act use the precise term.
      • Qualification language relating to prescribed/notification conditions: Both texts provide for prescribed conditions. The Old Version (Document 2) in sub-section (4)(b)(iii) uses "fulfils such other conditions, as prescribed," and sub-section (5) permits the Central Government by notification to specify other conditions "other than the condition referred to in sub-section (4)(b)(iii)". The enacted Section 118 (Document 1) mirrors this but places the "other conditions" power in sub-section (4) and states them as "other than the condition referred to in sub-section (3)(b)(iii)".
        • Practical impact: The change in cross-references (from (4)(b)(iii) to (3)(b)(iii)) follows the renumbering in the enacted text; substance appears consistent but requires careful reading to link the correct sub-clauses. No substantive alteration of the executive power is apparent from the texts provided.
      • Condition sequencing and minimum periods: Both texts impose the predecessor bank having been engaged in banking for three or more years and holding 3/4 of book value continuously for two years prior; and the successor bank holding 3/4 of book value for five years and continuing the business for five years. The enacted version frames some of these as sub-section (3) and the Bill (old) frames them as sub-section (4).
        • Practical impact: Primarily numbering and drafting shifts; substantive conditions appear consistent between drafts except for the eight-year carry-forward clause omitted in the enacted text.
      • Terminology around loss description: The Old Version (Document 2) consistently uses "accumulated business loss"; the enacted Section (Document 1) uses "accumulated loss".
        • Practical impact: Potential alignment issue with other sections that reference "accumulated business loss"; readers should confirm internal cross-references to avoid ambiguity.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Successor and resulting co-operative banks must document continuity of business and fixed asset book values to satisfy the 3/4 thresholds and prescribed conditions; failure converts previously claimed set-offs into taxable income for the year of non-compliance. Careful recordation across the two deemed tax years is necessary for correct set-off.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The clause implies need for evidence proving the predecessor's three-year engagement in banking, two-year continuity of fixed asset holding, successor's five-year continuity and five-year asset holding, and the apportionment basis where losses are not directly attributable-documentation of asset registers, valuations, transfer records and allocation methodologies will be central.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 118 permits set-off of predecessor co-operative bank losses and unabsorbed depreciation in amalgamation/demerger scenarios "as if" reorganisation had not occurred, subject to Act provisions and conditions.
      • An explicit eight-tax-year carry-forward limit is contained in the Bill (old) for accumulated business loss.
      • Qualification hinges on continuity conditions: predecessor's three-year banking activity and fixed asset thresholds; successor's five-year continuity and asset holding; and prescribed/notified conditions.
      • Non-compliance with conditions leads to prior set-offs being treated as taxable income in the year of non-compliance.
      • Demergers distinguish losses directly attributable to transferred undertakings (which travel in full) from those not directly attributable (which are apportioned by asset distribution).
      • Central Government retains power to specify additional conditions by notification (excluding certain prescribed conditions).
      • Deemed split of the tax year across the date of reorganisation affects set-off and carry-forward timing.

      Full Text:

      Section 118 Carry forward and set off of losses and unabsorbed depreciation in business reorganisation of co-operative banks.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax