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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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