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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      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