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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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