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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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