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

      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