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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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