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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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

      Recalibrating Long-Term Capital Gains Taxation : Clause 198 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 112A of the Income Tax Act, 1961

      29 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 198 Tax on long-term capital gains in certain cases.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Introduction

      Clause 198 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 introduces a special regime for the taxation of long-term capital gains (LTCG) arising from the transfer of specific financial assets-namely, equity shares in companies, units of equity-oriented funds, and units of business trusts. This provision is positioned as a successor to, and substantial revision of, Section 112A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has governed the taxation of similar capital gains since its introduction by the Finance Act, 2018. The significance of Clause 198 lies in its attempt to recalibrate the tax treatment of LTCG in light of evolving market realities, revenue considerations, and policy objectives such as promoting investments through regulated exchanges and rationalizing the tax structure. A detailed analysis of Clause 198, juxtaposed with Section 112A, is essential to understand the legislative intent, operative mechanics, practical implications, and the direction of tax policy reform in India.

      2. Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind Clause 198 is multifaceted:

      • Revenue Augmentation: By increasing the tax rate on eligible LTCG and redefining thresholds, the provision aims to enhance government revenues while maintaining market competitiveness.
      • Market Integrity: The continued linkage of concessional LTCG tax rates to the payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT) seeks to incentivize transactions through recognized and regulated market mechanisms, thereby curbing tax evasion.
      • Simplification and Modernization: The provision consolidates and clarifies the eligibility criteria, computational mechanics, and definitions, aiming for greater clarity and ease of enforcement.
      • Alignment with International Standards: By refining the definition of equity-oriented funds and providing exemptions for transactions in International Financial Services Centres (IFSCs), the provision seeks to integrate Indian capital markets with global best practices.

      Section 112A was originally enacted to reintroduce taxation of LTCG on listed equity shares and certain units, after such gains were made exempt by Section 10(38). The purpose was to balance the need for incentivizing equity investments with the imperative of broadening the tax base.

      3. Detailed Analysis of Clause 198 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 

      3.1. Scope and Applicability

      Clause 198(1) establishes the scope of the provision by stipulating three cumulative conditions:

      • (a) The assessee's total income must include income chargeable under the head "Capital gains".
      • (b) The capital gains must arise from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, specifically being an equity share in a company, a unit of an equity-oriented fund, or a unit of a business trust.
      • (c) Securities Transaction Tax (STT) must have been paid:
        • (i) On both acquisition and transfer in the case of equity shares.
        • (ii) On transfer in the case of units of equity-oriented funds or business trusts.

      This mirrors the structure of Section 112A(1), although the precise wording and cross-references are updated for the new legislative framework.

      3.2. Computation of Tax (Sub-section 2)

      Clause 198(2) provides the computational formula for tax liability:

      • (a) Income-tax at 12.5% on LTCG exceeding INR 1,25,000.
      • (b) Income-tax on the remainder of the total income (i.e., total income minus the eligible LTCG) as per normal rates.

      This represents a notable increase from the earlier 10% rate (pre-July 2024) u/s 112A, aligning with the recent amendment under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024, which also moved to a 12.5% rate for transfers on or after July 23, 2024.

      3.3. Marginal Relief for Individuals and HUFs (Sub-section 3)

      Clause 198(3) provides relief for resident individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs):

      • If the total income (excluding eligible LTCG) is below the basic exemption limit, the shortfall can be adjusted against LTCG, effectively providing a higher exemption to low-income taxpayers.

      This mechanism is a direct carryover from the proviso to Section 112A(2), ensuring continuity of relief for small taxpayers.

      3.4. Exemption for IFSC Transactions (Sub-section 4)

      Clause 198(4) carves out an exception for transfers executed on recognized stock exchanges in IFSCs where consideration is received in foreign currency. In such cases, the STT condition does not apply. This provision is designed to incentivize international capital flows and bolster India's position as a global financial hub, mirroring Section 112A(3).

      3.5. Central Government Notification Power (Sub-section 5)

      Clause 198(5) empowers the Central Government to notify, by Gazette notification, specific types of acquisitions for which the STT-on-acquisition requirement may be waived. This is an enabling provision, paralleling Section 112A(4), and grants flexibility to address market anomalies or policy needs.

      3.6. Interaction with Deductions and Rebates (Sub-sections 6 and 7)

      • Clause 198(6): Deductions under Chapter VIII (analogous to Chapter VI-A in the 1961 Act) are allowed only from gross total income as reduced by the eligible LTCG. This prevents double benefit and maintains the integrity of the concessional rate regime.
      • Clause 198(7): Rebate u/s 156 (corresponding to section 87A) is allowed from tax on total income as reduced by tax on such LTCG, again mirroring the mechanics of Section 112A(6).

      3.7. Definition of Equity-Oriented Fund (Sub-section 8)

      Clause 198(8) provides a detailed definition of "equity oriented fund", specifying:

      • Minimum investment thresholds (90% or 65%) in equity shares of domestic companies listed on recognized exchanges.
      • Special computation rules (annual average of monthly averages).
      • Special requirements for unit linked insurance policies (ULIPs).

      This definition is largely consistent with the explanation u/s 112A, with minor updates to references and schedules as per the new Bill's structure.

      4. Ambiguities and Issues in Interpretation

      While Clause 198 is largely modeled on Section 112A, certain areas may require further clarification:

      • Threshold for Exemption: The exemption threshold for LTCG is set at INR 1,25,000, an increase from the earlier INR 1,00,000 u/s 112A (prior to recent amendments). This may require clear transitional provisions for ongoing assessments.
      • Definition of "Equity Oriented Fund": The cross-references to new Schedules may create interpretational issues until the subordinate legislation is finalized.
      • Interaction with Other Provisions: The relationship between Clause 198 and general capital gains provisions (e.g., for grandfathering, cost inflation index, etc.) needs to be explicitly addressed in the Bill or through subsequent clarifications.

      5. Practical Implications

      5.1. For Taxpayers

      • Increased Tax Liability: The move from 10% to 12.5% on eligible LTCG will increase the effective tax outgo for investors, especially high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors.
      • Compliance Requirements: The continued linkage to STT payment and the specific documentation required for proving eligible transactions will necessitate robust compliance mechanisms.
      • Marginal Relief: Resident individuals and HUFs with income below the exemption limit continue to benefit from the ability to adjust the shortfall against LTCG, protecting low-income investors.

      5.2. For Asset Managers and Market Intermediaries

      • Fund Structuring: Asset managers of mutual funds and insurance companies must ensure ongoing compliance with the minimum investment thresholds for equity-oriented status, as the computation is now further clarified.
      • Product Design: The definition of equity-oriented funds and the treatment of ULIPs may influence the design and marketing of investment products.

      5.3. For Regulators and Policymakers

      • Enforcement: The increased rate and continued conditionality on STT payment may require enhanced monitoring of transactions, especially in the context of cross-border trades and IFSCs.
      • Policy Flexibility: The notification power allows the government to respond dynamically to market developments, but also introduces an element of administrative discretion.

      6. Comparative Analysis: Clause 198 vs. Section 112A

       

      A detailed comparison reveals both substantial similarities and key differences. The analysis below is structured by major themes:

      6.1. Scope and Structure

      Both provisions apply to LTCG arising from equity shares, units of equity-oriented funds, and business trusts, provided STT has been paid. Both carve out exceptions for IFSC transactions and empower the government to notify exceptions to the STT requirement.

      6.2. Tax Rate and Threshold

      • Section 112A: Originally provided for a 10% tax rate on LTCG exceeding Rs. 1 lakh. Amended (w.e.f. 23 July 2024) to 12.5% on gains exceeding Rs. 1,25,000 for transfers on or after that date.
      • Clause 198: Directly provides for a 12.5% rate on LTCG exceeding Rs. 1,25,000, reflecting the updated policy and aligning with the most recent amendment to Section 112A.

      The increase in both the rate and threshold reflects an attempt to balance revenue needs with investor protection.

      6.3. STT Payment Requirement

      Both provisions require STT to be paid on acquisition and transfer (for equity shares) and on transfer (for units of funds and business trusts). Both allow the government to notify exceptions, ensuring flexibility.

      6.4. Adjustment for Basic Exemption Limit

      Both provisions allow resident individuals and HUFs to adjust the shortfall in total income (excluding LTCG) below the basic exemption limit against LTCG, thus ensuring that low-income taxpayers are not unfairly penalized.

      6.5. Deductions and Rebates

      • Section 112A: Deductions under Chapter VI-A and rebate u/s 87A are allowed only after reducing LTCG and tax thereon, respectively.
      • Clause 198: Adopts the same approach, referencing Chapter VIII (which may be a renumbered or equivalent provision) and section 156 (analogous to section 87A).

      The effect is to prevent deductions and rebates from offsetting the tax on LTCG, maintaining the integrity of the concessional regime.

      6.6. Definition of "Equity Oriented Fund"

      The definitions in both provisions are nearly identical, with minor variations in cross-references (Schedule VII and II in Clause 198, versus section 10(23D) and 10(10D) in Section 112A). The substance-investment thresholds, computation method, and treatment of insurance-linked policies-remains consistent.

      6.7. Notable Differences

      • Threshold and Rate: Clause 198 directly incorporates the increased threshold (Rs. 1,25,000) and rate (12.5%), whereas Section 112A reflects these changes via recent amendments.
      • Cross-References: Clause 198 refers to Chapter VIII and section 156, which may represent renumbered or reorganized provisions in the new Bill, while Section 112A refers to Chapter VI-A and section 87A.
      • Drafting Language: Minor differences in language and structure, but the substantive legal effect is aligned.

      6.8. Transitional and Policy Considerations

      The alignment of Clause 198 with the amended Section 112A suggests a desire for continuity and predictability. However, the increase in tax rate and threshold may have distributional and behavioral effects, potentially encouraging tax planning or shifting investment patterns.

      6.9 Difference between Section 112A Vs. Clause 198

      FeatureSection 112A of the Income Tax Act, 1961Clause 198 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Key Differences/Observations
      ApplicabilityLTCG on equity shares, equity-oriented funds, business trusts; subject to STT paymentSame scope and conditionsNo substantive change in asset coverage or STT linkage
      Tax Rate10% (pre-July 2024), 12.5% (post-July 2024)12.5% (for all transfers)Aligns with amended 112A; signals permanence of higher rate
      Exemption ThresholdINR 1,25,000 (recently increased from INR 1,00,000)INR 1,25,000Threshold harmonized; ensures relief for smaller investors
      Marginal ReliefAvailable for resident individuals and HUFsAvailableUnchanged; continuity of taxpayer protection
      IFSC ExemptionSTT not required for IFSC trades in foreign currencySameContinues policy of incentivizing IFSCs
      Deduction/ Rebate TreatmentDeductions under Chapter VI-A and rebate u/s 87A allowed only after excluding LTCGDeductions under Chapter VIII and rebate u/s 156 allowed similarlyTerminology updated; substance unchanged
      Definition of Equity Oriented Fund90%/65% threshold; includes ULIPs; annual average computationSame, with references to new schedulesTechnical alignment; no major substantive change
      Government Notification PowerPresentPresentContinued flexibility

      6.1. Unique Features or Potential Conflicts

      • Rate Structure: The codification of the 12.5% rate in the new Bill, as opposed to the earlier 10% u/s 112A, marks a significant policy shift towards higher capital gains taxation. This may affect investor sentiment, particularly in comparison to other jurisdictions with lower rates on equity LTCG.
      • Reference Updates: The shift from Chapter VI-A to Chapter VIII and from section 87A to section 156 reflects the reorganization of the legislative framework, which may require stakeholders to update compliance and reporting processes.
      • Transitional Issues: The transition from Section 112A to Clause 198 may raise issues regarding pending assessments, grandfathering of gains, and treatment of losses. Clear transitional rules will be necessary to avoid litigation.

      7. Conclusion

      Clause 198 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents both a consolidation and a recalibration of the regime for taxing long-term capital gains on listed equities and related instruments. While the core structure and conditionalities of Section 112A are retained, the increase in the tax rate to 12.5% and minor definitional updates signal a shift towards greater revenue mobilization and policy alignment with international practices. The provision continues to balance the objectives of market integrity, investor protection, and administrative flexibility. The practical impact will be felt by a broad spectrum of stakeholders-from retail investors and HUFs to institutional asset managers and international market participants. While the continuity of marginal relief and the preservation of key definitions ensure stability, the higher rate and updated compliance requirements will necessitate careful planning and adaptation. As the provision comes into force, it will be essential for the government to issue clarificatory notifications, especially regarding transitional issues and the precise application of new schedules and definitions. Judicial interpretation may also be required to resolve ambiguities and ensure fair and consistent application.


      Full Text:

      Clause 198 Tax on long-term capital gains in certain cases.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax