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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      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