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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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 291 "Intimation of loss." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      10 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 291 Intimation of loss.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The materials are two textual versions of a provision titled "Intimation of loss" numbered 291: one is Section 291 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and the other is Clause 291 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). The Bill version includes an additional cross-reference to section 111(2) that does not appear in the enacted Act text shown. The provision affects assessees and Assessing Officers in the context of carrying forward and set-off of losses for the purposes of specified sections. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Procedure for assessment; cross-references to section 111(1) (and in the Bill 111(2)), section 112, section 113(2) and section 115(1). The provision mandates that the Assessing Officer shall notify the assessee by an order in writing the amount of loss as computed by him for the purposes of the listed sections where (a) in the course of assessment it is established that a loss has taken place; and (b) the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off such loss under the provisions of the said sections. Definitions or further explanations are: Not stated in the document.

        Statutory Provision Mode

        Text & Scope

        The operative command is: "The Assessing Officer shall notify to the assessee by an order in writing the amount of the loss as computed by him for the purposes of section 111(1) or 112 or 113(2) or 115(1)," where two conditions are met: (a) in the course of assessment of the total income of any assessee, it is established that a loss has taken place; and (b) the assessee is entitled to have carried forward and set off such loss under the provisions of the said sections. The provision therefore covers the procedural duty of the Assessing Officer to give written intimation to the assessee regarding computed loss amounts that are relevant for the purposes of the specifically enumerated sections.

        Interpretation

        Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The text indicates a mandatory duty ("shall notify") on the Assessing Officer to communicate the computed amount of loss to the assessee when the loss is identified in assessment and is eligible for carry forward and set-off under the cited sections. The text implies a nexus between (i) establishment of loss in assessment and (ii) entitlement under the referenced sections as conditions for the notification duty. The document does not state additional legislative history, intent beyond the wording, or definitions explaining the precise meaning of "notify" or procedural mechanics; therefore, those aspects are Not stated in the document.

        Exceptions/Provisos

        No provisos, exceptions, thresholds, or carve-outs are included within the text shown. Any exceptions or procedural nuances are Not stated in the document.

        Illustrations

        • Example 1: An assessee undergoes assessment and the Assessing Officer establishes a loss. If the loss is eligible to be carried forward and set off u/s 112 (one of the listed sections), then the Assessing Officer "shall notify" the assessee by order in writing of the amount of loss as computed for the purposes of section 112. (Consistent with the text.)
        • Example 2: An assessee has a loss identified in assessment and the loss is relevant for section 113(2). Under the provision the officer must issue a written order notifying the computed loss amount for the purposes of section 113(2). (Consistent with the text.)
        • Example 3: In the Bill version only, if a loss is computed for the purposes of section 111(2) and the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off such loss u/s 111(2), the Assessing Officer would be required to notify the assessee in writing of that computed amount. (Consistent with the Bill text.)

        Interplay

        The provision cross-references sections 111(1) (and in the Bill 111(2)), 112, 113(2) and 115(1). The text does not cite any Rules, Notifications or Circulars. Specific modes of interplay with other statutory or subordinate provisions (for example, time limits for issuing the order, consequences of failure to notify, appellate remedies, or the effect of the notification on procedural timelines) are Not stated in the document.

        Differences Between the Two Provisions and Practical Impact

        Identified textual differences:

        • Reference to section 111(2): The Bill (Document 2) expressly lists "section 111(1) or (2) or 112" while the Act text (Document 1) lists "section 111(1) or 112" (i.e., the "(2)" reference to section 111 is absent).
        • Marginal commentary: The Bill text includes a one-line explanatory note: "Clause 291 of the Bill seeks to provide for intimation of loss the purposes of carrying forward and set-off of such losses." The Act text does not include this note.
        • Minor punctuation and formatting differences only; no other substantive variance is apparent from the texts provided.

        Practical impact of each change:

        • Inclusion of section 111(2) in the Bill broadens the listed purposes for which the Assessing Officer must notify the computed loss. If section 111(2) deals with a different tax outcome or sub-category of computation than section 111(1), its inclusion would require intimation of losses computed for that additional sub-purpose. Conversely, the absence of 111(2) in the Act narrows the explicit mandate to 111(1) only. Practical consequences include the potential for differing treatment of losses relevant to the omitted sub-section: assessees and officers may lack the explicit statutory trigger for an intimation in respect of losses falling solely within the omitted sub-section, possibly affecting procedural clarity and certainty in claims for carry forward and set-off. The document does not state legislative intent or consequences beyond the text.
        • The explanatory line in the Bill clarifies legislative purpose (intimation for carrying forward and set-off) but does not alter operative text; its absence in the Act text removes that immediate legislative commentary from the statutory print. Practical impact: minor-users of the enacted Act have less in-text explanatory wording but the operative requirement remains.

        Practical Implications

        • Compliance and risk areas: The Assessing Officer has an explicit mandatory duty to notify assessees in writing of computed loss amounts relevant to the listed sections when the two preconditions are met. Failure to issue such orders where required could raise procedural challenges or disputes in practical administration; however, remedies or consequences are Not stated in the document.
        • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision's requirement of an "order in writing" implies the need for documented computation and written communication to the assessee. Officers and assessees should preserve the written order and supporting computation records to evidence entitlement for carry forward and set-off. Specific formats, timelines, or required content of the order are Not stated in the document.

        Key Takeaways

        • Clause/Section 291 mandates a written order by the Assessing Officer notifying the amount of loss computed for the purposes of specified sections where a loss is established in assessment and is eligible for carry forward and set-off under those sections.
        • The Bill text explicitly included section 111(2); the enacted Act text shown omits that sub-section reference-this is the principal substantive divergence between the texts provided.
        • The inclusion or omission of section 111(2) affects the explicit scope of the notification duty and may have procedural consequences for losses falling within that sub-section; the documents do not state legislative explanation of this change.
        • The provision requires an "order in writing," which emphasises the need for documentary communication, but the document does not specify form, timing or consequences of non-compliance.
        • Other interpretive and procedural details, including remedies, timelines and interaction with appellate processes, are Not stated in the document.

        Full Text:

        Section 291 Intimation of loss.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax