Section 102(11)

Section 102(11) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 102(11), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Statutory position — s.102: "tax benefit", "arrangement", "step", "party" and "benefit" — the definitions that decide whether Chapter X-A can start at all CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The department says I obtained a "tax benefit" from an "arrangement". Where are those words defined, how wide are they, and does an increase in my carried-forward loss count?
  Section 102 is the definition section for the whole Chapter, and its two most important entries are drafted as wide as they could be. "Tax benefit" in s.102(10) is an INCLUSIVE definition — the section says "includes" — and its six sub-clauses cover a reduction, avoidance or deferral of tax or other amount payable under the Act; an increase in a refund; the same two things where they arise as a result of a tax treaty; a reduction in total income; and an increase in loss — each of them "in the relevant previous year or any other previous year". An increase in loss therefore is a tax benefit even in a year in which no tax was payable at all. "Arrangement" in s.102(1) means "any step in, or a part or whole of, any transaction, operation, scheme, agreement or understanding, whether enforceable or not", and includes the alienation of property in it, and "step" in s.102(9) includes "a measure or an action, particularly one of a series taken in order to deal with or achieve a particular thing or object in the arrangement".
• Statutory position — s.90(2A): the treaty does not save you from GAAR, because Chapter X-A applies "even if such provisions are not beneficial" to the assessee CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client is a treaty resident and the treaty plainly gives him the better of it. The department is invoking Chapter X-A anyway. Can it, when s.90(2) says the more beneficial provision applies?
  It can, and s.90(2A) is the provision that says so. Section 90(2) is the ordinary rule that where India has a treaty, the provisions of the Act apply "to the extent they are more beneficial to that assessee". Section 90(2A) then reads: "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the provisions of Chapter X-A of the Act shall apply to the assessee even if such provisions are not beneficial to him." So the treaty override that normally protects a non-resident is expressly switched off for Chapter X-A, and the fact that a Chapter X-A determination leaves the taxpayer worse off than the treaty is not an answer to it.

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.