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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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