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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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