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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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