Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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