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

      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