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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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

      Reforming Long-Term Capital Gains Taxation : Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 112 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      29 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 197 Tax on long-term capital gains.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 introduces a revamped regime for the taxation of long-term capital gains (LTCG) arising from the transfer of long-term capital assets. This provision is intended to replace and streamline the existing framework under section 112 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both provisions are central to the taxation of capital gains in India, impacting a wide spectrum of taxpayers, including individuals, Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), companies, and non-residents. The changes proposed in Clause 197 reflect a significant policy shift, particularly in terms of tax rates, indexation benefits, and the treatment of different classes of assets.

      This commentary provides an in-depth analysis of Clause 197, explores its objectives and implications, and offers a comprehensive comparative analysis with Section 112 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The focus is on the structural changes, the rationale behind legislative choices, and the practical consequences for stakeholders.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 197 is to rationalize and simplify the taxation of long-term capital gains, aligning the tax structure with contemporary economic realities and policy goals. The provision aims to:

      • Reduce the long-term capital gains tax rate from 20% to 12.5% for most long-term capital assets, except for certain specified assets.
      • Standardize the treatment of indexation benefits, particularly for assets acquired before a specified date.
      • Ensure a smoother transition from the old regime to the new, mitigating adverse impacts on taxpayers who acquired assets under the previous rules.
      • Clarify definitions and harmonize the treatment of securities, listed and unlisted assets, and deductions under other chapters.

      The legislative history of Section 112 reveals a pattern of ad hoc amendments and provisos, often resulting in complexity and interpretational challenges. By consolidating and simplifying the regime, Clause 197 seeks to promote certainty, ease of compliance, and administrative efficiency.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Computation of Tax on LTCG

      Clause 197(1) lays down the basic computation mechanism for tax payable by an assessee whose total income includes LTCG:

      1. Tax on Other Income: The first component is income-tax payable on the total income, excluding the LTCG. This is calculated as if the remaining income is the total income of the assessee.
      2. Tax on LTCG: The second component is income-tax on the LTCG at a flat rate of 12.5%.

      This structure is a marked shift from the earlier 20% rate (with various exceptions and nuances) u/s 112. The flat rate is intended to simplify calculations and reduce the overall tax burden on LTCG, making India's capital gains regime more competitive internationally.

      Relief for Individuals and HUFs Below Exemption Limit

      Clause 197(2) provides relief for resident individuals and HUFs whose other income (i.e., total income excluding LTCG) falls below the basic exemption threshold. The mechanics are as follows:

      1. The LTCG is reduced by the shortfall between the exemption limit and the other income.
      2. Tax is then computed at 12.5% on the balance LTCG.

      This ensures that the benefit of the exemption limit is fully utilized, and LTCG is only taxed to the extent total income exceeds the threshold. This mirrors the relief mechanism in Section 112, thereby ensuring continuity and fairness for low-income taxpayers.

      Transitional Relief for Old Assets (Land/Building)

      A key innovation in Clause 197(3) is the provision of transitional relief for individuals and HUFs who transfer land or building acquired before 23rd July 2024. The provision specifies that any excess income-tax (computed as per a formula) arising due to the new regime shall be ignored. The formula is:

      • E = A - B, where:
      • A is the tax computed at 12.5% on the LTCG (without indexation);
      • B is the tax computed at 20% on the LTCG, but with indexation benefits.

      If tax under the new regime (without indexation) exceeds what would have been payable under the old regime (with indexation), the excess is ignored. This ensures that taxpayers do not suffer a higher tax outgo simply due to the regime shift, particularly for assets acquired before the cut-off date. This transition mechanism is crucial to maintaining taxpayer confidence and preventing retrospective hardship.

      Deductions under Chapter VIII

      Clause 197(4) stipulates that for the purposes of deductions under Chapter VIII, the gross total income shall be reduced by the LTCG. Deductions are allowed as if the gross total income (excluding LTCG) is the gross total income of the assessee. This aligns with the general principle that capital gains are not eligible for most deductions (such as u/s 80C).

      Definitions

      Definitions are provided for key terms-"securities," "listed securities," "unlisted securities," "indexed cost of acquisition," and "indexed cost of improvement." These definitions are harmonized with the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and relevant sections of the Bill, ensuring consistency across the statute.

      Scope and Exclusions

      It is specifically clarified that Clause 197 does not apply to equity shares in a company, units of an equity-oriented fund, or units of a business trust. These continue to be governed by separate provisions, reflecting the policy of concessional or exempt treatment for equity-oriented investments.

      Practical Implications

      For Individuals and HUFs

      The reduction in tax rate to 12.5% (from 20%) for most LTCG will lower the effective tax liability for a large number of taxpayers. The continued benefit of the exemption limit ensures that small taxpayers are not adversely affected. The transitional relief for old assets is especially important for individuals who acquired land/building in earlier years, as it prevents penal taxation due to the withdrawal of indexation.

      For Companies and Non-Residents

      The absence of explicit provisions for companies and non-residents in Clause 197 (as compared to the detailed sub-clauses in Section 112) suggests a streamlining, possibly with separate sections addressing these categories. This could enhance clarity but also requires careful cross-referencing to ensure no category is inadvertently omitted.

      On Indexation

      The general withdrawal of indexation (except for transitional relief) simplifies compliance but may disadvantage taxpayers in periods of high inflation. The policy choice reflects a trade-off between simplicity (and lower rates) and the protection of real gains.

      On Deductions

      The explicit exclusion of LTCG from the computation of gross total income for deduction purposes maintains the long-standing policy of restricting tax incentives to ordinary income, not capital gains.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 197 vs. section 112

      1. Tax Rates

      • Section 112: Provided a 20% tax rate for LTCG, with exceptions (10% for certain gains, e.g., unlisted securities for non-residents). For transfers on or after 23rd July 2024, the rate is reduced to 12.5%.
      • Clause 197: Imposes a uniform 12.5% rate for LTCG (other than specified excluded assets), streamlining the rate structure.

      The shift to a flat 12.5% rate under Clause 197 eliminates the need to distinguish between types of assets and taxpayers for most cases, reducing complexity.

      2. Indexation Benefit

      • Section 112: Allowed indexation for most assets, except for certain categories (e.g., unlisted shares for non-residents). For listed securities and zero-coupon bonds, a choice between 10% without indexation and 20% with indexation was available.
      • Clause 197: Generally removes indexation, except for transitional relief for land/building acquired before 23rd July 2024 (where excess tax due to withdrawal of indexation is ignored).

      The new regime is simpler but may increase the effective tax on real gains in times of inflation. The transitional provision mitigates this for legacy assets.

      3. Asset Categories and Exclusions

      • Section 112: Covered all long-term capital assets, with special rates for certain securities, mutual fund units, and zero-coupon bonds. Equity shares and units of equity-oriented funds were largely governed by Section 112A or were exempt u/s 10(38) (earlier).
      • Clause 197: Explicitly excludes equity shares, units of equity-oriented funds, and units of business trusts from its ambit, indicating continued separate treatment.

      This clarification in Clause 197 avoids confusion and overlap, ensuring that the concessional/exempt regime for equity remains intact.

      4. Relief for Small Taxpayers

      • Section 112: Provided that if total income (excluding LTCG) is below the exemption limit, the shortfall can be reduced from LTCG before computing tax.
      • Clause 197: Retains this relief mechanism, ensuring continuity for low-income taxpayers.

      5. Transitional Provisions

      • Section 112: For assets acquired before the cut-off, excess tax due to new rates or withdrawal of indexation is ignored.
      • Clause 197: Contains a similar, but more formulaic and explicit, transitional relief for land/building acquired before 23rd July 2024.

      The formula-based approach in Clause 197 increases transparency and predictability.

      6. Treatment of Deductions

      • Section 112: Deductions under Chapter VI-A not allowed against LTCG.
      • Clause 197: Deductions under Chapter VIII allowed only on gross total income excluding LTCG.

      This maintains the same substantive position.

      7. Definitions and Clarity

      • Section 112: Definitions provided, but scattered and sometimes ambiguous due to frequent amendments.
      • Clause 197: Consolidates definitions, explicitly referencing the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, and internal definitions for indexation terms.

      8. Provisions for Companies and Non-Residents

      • Section 112: Contains detailed sub-clauses for domestic companies, non-residents, and foreign companies, with specific rates and exceptions.
      • Clause 197: The main text focuses on individuals and HUFs, with companies and non-residents apparently addressed elsewhere or by implication.

      This could be an area for further legislative clarification to avoid gaps or unintended exclusions.

      9. Special Asset Classes

      • Section 112: Specific provisions for listed securities, zero-coupon bonds, mutual fund units, and unlisted shares for non-residents.
      • Clause 197: No specific carve-outs within the main text; instead, focuses on the general rule and transitional relief for land/building.

      The move towards generalization may simplify the law but could also remove beneficial options for certain asset classes.

      Comparative Summary Table

      Aspectsection 112 of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      General LTCG Rate20% (pre-23 July 2024); 12.5% (post-23 July 2024)12.5% (post-23 July 2024)
      Indexation BenefitAllowed for most assets; restricted for certain securitiesAllowed only for assets acquired before 23 July 2024 (grandfathered)
      Special Rate for Non-residents (Unlisted Securities)10% (without indexation)Not explicitly provided
      Listed Securities/Zero Coupon Bonds Cap10% cap (before indexation)Not provided
      Basic Exemption AdjustmentYes (for individuals/HUFs)Yes (for individuals/HUFs)
      Exclusion of Equities/UnitsBy implication, via Section 112A and othersExplicit exclusion
      DefinitionsProvided, referencing SCRA, 1956Provided, referencing SCRA, 1956 and section 72

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Omission of Companies/Non-Residents: The absence of explicit provisions for these categories in Clause 197 could lead to interpretational disputes unless addressed elsewhere in the Bill.
      • Indexation Withdrawal: The withdrawal of indexation for most assets may be challenged as regressive in high-inflation periods.
      • Transitional Relief Scope: Limiting transitional relief to land/building (and not other assets) may be seen as arbitrary.
      • Overlap with Other Provisions: The exclusion of equity shares and units requires careful cross-referencing to ensure no double taxation or unintended exemption.

      Conclusion

      Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a significant overhaul of the long-term capital gains tax regime, aiming for simplicity, lower rates, and greater predictability. While the reduction in the LTCG rate to 12.5% is a welcome move, the withdrawal of indexation (except for transitional assets) marks a notable policy shift. The provision is broadly aligned with the intent of section 112 but streamlines and consolidates the law, removing many of the exceptions and complexities that had accumulated over the years.

      The key strengths of Clause 197 are its clarity, transitional relief, and alignment with international best practices. Potential areas for refinement include explicit coverage of companies and non-residents, and reconsideration of the scope of indexation withdrawal. The provision is likely to reduce litigation and compliance costs, but its long-term impact on taxpayer behavior and revenue neutrality will depend on inflation trends and asset price movements.


      Full Text:

      Clause 197 Tax on long-term capital gains.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax