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

      Comparison of Section 72 "Mode of computation of capital gains" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      29 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 72 Mode of computation of capital gains.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 72 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes the mode of computation of income chargeable under the head "Capital gains". It sets out deductible items from the full value of consideration, treatment of indexation, exclusions from deduction, special rules for units of business trusts, specified-person transactions, and certain rules for non-residents. The provision affects taxpayers disposing of capital assets, non-resident investors in Indian securities, business trust unit-holders and specified entities. Effective/commencement date: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 72 (Mode of computation of capital gains) prescribes the manner in which income chargeable under the head "Capital gains" is to be computed. It applies to transfers of capital assets and sets out the deductions allowable from the "full value of the consideration" received or accruing as a result of such transfer. The text is structured in eight sub-sections addressing allowable deductions, indexation in prescribed cases, non-allowable deductions, treatment in relation to business trust distributions, specified person/entity transactions, computation for non-residents dealing in Indian company shares/debentures, treatment of gains from rupee appreciation on rupee-denominated bonds, and definitions including Cost Inflation Index and indexed costs.

      Interpretation

      The provision implements a deductive arithmetic model: capital gains = full value of consideration less specified deductions. Sub-section 72(1) specifies two primary deductible heads - (a) expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred in connection with the transfer; (b) cost of acquisition and cost of any improvement. Sub-section 72(2) provides that, in prescribed cases, these cost heads shall be treated as their "indexed" equivalents - effectively allowing inflation adjustment where applicable. The legislative intent, as manifested in the text, is to preserve indexation relief in circumstances specified by the executive (prescription), while retaining a base rule for allowable deductions. The text does not state legislative policy beyond these mechanics. Not stated in the document: any parliamentary statements or objectives beyond the literal drafting.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The section contains express exclusions and special rules:

      • Sub-s.72(3) excludes from deduction: (a) interest claimed under s.22(1)(b) or under Chapter VIII; and (b) securities transaction tax under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004. These amounts cannot be deducted while computing capital gains.
      • Sub-s.72(4) creates a special cost-adjustment rule for unit holders receiving non-income amounts from business trusts (Schedule V items). Such amounts are to be reduced from the cost of acquisition; if the transfer is not treated as transfer under s.70 and cost determined under s.73, amounts received before and after such transaction shall be reduced from cost of acquisition.
      • Sub-s.72(5) allows a specified entity (as per s.67(10)) to claim a prescribed deduction attributable to the transfer of a capital asset - entitlement language is present (the entity "is entitled").
      • Sub-s.72(6)-(7) impose special computation rules for non-residents dealing in shares/debentures and rupee-denominated bonds - conversion into the same foreign currency used at acquisition and reconversion after computing gains; gains due to rupee appreciation on rupee bonds are to be ignored for computing full value of consideration.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An Indian resident transfers a capital asset for consideration X. From X, the taxpayer deducts expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred on the transfer and the cost of acquisition and improvements (or indexed equivalents in prescribed cases). Not stated in the document: numeric values or procedural forms to be used for claiming these deductions.
      • Example 2: A non-resident who purchased debentures in foreign currency converts both acquisition cost and sale consideration into that foreign currency for computation of capital gain, then reconverts the computed gain into Indian rupees for tax purposes. Not stated in the document: the specific rate of exchange to be used (prescription assumed; Document 2 lacks the explicit exchange-rate clause present in the enacted Act).

      Interplay

      The section refers to multiple other provisions and enactments: s.22(1)(b), Chapter VIII, Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, s.70, s.73, s.67(10), Schedule V, s.198 and s.197(3). The provision anticipates implementing rules ("as prescribed") for indexation cases and for calculation in relation to specified entities and currency conversion. The Bill text itself does not specify the implementing rules or the precise interaction mechanics; those are left to prescription. Not stated in the document: details of the implementing rules, notification references, or cross-statutory amendments required for coherent interplay.

      Comparative Differences and Practical Impact

      Documents compared: Section 72 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and Clause 72 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (Document 2).

      • Placement and Drafting Context: Document 1 is presented as Section 72 of the enacted Income-tax Act, 2025; Document 2 is the old version of Clause 72 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025.
        • Practical impact: the Act text (Document 1) represents final statutory language; the Bill text (Document 2) is an earlier proposal and may differ in specific drafting and operative details.
      • Sub-section (2) - Trigger for Indexation: Document 1 (Act) states in s.72(2): "For the purposes of item B of the formula in section 197(3), the provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect as if for the words 'cost of acquisition' and 'cost of any improvement', the words 'indexed cost of acquisition' and 'indexed cost of any improvement' had respectively been substituted." Document 2 (Bill) states s.72(2): "In cases, as prescribed, the provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect as if for the words 'cost of acquisition' and 'cost of any improvement', the words 'indexed cost of acquisition' and 'indexed cost of any improvement' had respectively been substituted."
        • Practical impact: the Bill conditions indexation by reference to prescribed cases, whereas the Act text ties indexation specifically to item B of the formula in s.197(3). That narrows and clarifies the operative context in the Act, reducing administrative discretion to prescribe unspecified cases and aligning indexation to a named formula item; this may limit application of indexation to particular computational contexts and reduce uncertainty for taxpayers and administrators.
      • Sub-section (4) Wording Minor Differences: Both texts contain s.72(4) about unit holders and business trusts with substantially similar wording.
        • Practical impact: none material-substantive parity retained.
      • Sub-section (5) - Entitlement Language: Document 1 (Act) s.72(5) reads: "the specified entity, in addition to deductions under sub-section (1), shall also be entitled to a deduction calculated in such manner, as may be prescribed..." Document 2 (Bill) s.72(5) reads: "the specified entity is entitled to a deduction calculated in such manner, as prescribed..."
        • Practical impact: the Act text explicitly states the deduction is "in addition to deductions under sub-section (1)", which clarifies aggregation of deductions; the Bill language is less explicit on aggregation. The Act's clarification reduces interpretive ambiguity concerning whether the prescribed deduction is separate from subsection (1) deductions.
      • Sub-section (6) & (7) - Wording on Non-residents and Rupee-denominated bonds: Both texts substantially align, though Document 1 uses slightly different punctuation and insertion of "wholly and exclusively" in sub-s.6(a) of the Act; Document 2 has "expenditure incurred, wholly and exclusively, in connection..."
        • Practical impact: no material change in substance.
      • Sub-section (8) - Definitions/Prescriptions: Document 1 contains an expanded s.72(8) with four clauses (a)-(d). It defines "Cost Inflation Index" and provides specific formulae for indexed costs (b) and (c), and clause (d) prescribes conversion rates for currency conversion. Document 2 contains three clauses (a)-(c) only, defining Cost Inflation Index and indexed costs but omitting any clause equivalent to Document 1's (d) on rates of exchange.
        • Practical impact: the Act adds express provision (s.72(8)(d)) prescribing the rate of exchange for conversion/reconversion of currency; this closes a lacuna in the Bill that would have left exchange rate prescription uncertain and dependent solely on separate rules or regulations. Inclusion in the Act provides statutory authority for the exchange rate mechanism tied to computation in sub-s.6 and improves clarity for non-residents.
      • Terminology and Minor Drafting Differences: There are slight variations in punctuation, ordering of words ("for the purpose of computing" vs "for the purpose of computing the full value of consideration"), and small wording differences in s.72(7) on computation of full value of consideration.
        • Practical impact: largely drafting; no substantive shifts beyond those noted above.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: taxpayers must maintain contemporaneous records of acquisition cost and cost of improvements, and of expenditures wholly and exclusively incurred for the transfer. For non-residents, records showing the foreign currency initially used for acquisition are essential to apply the conversion rule in s.72(6).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: the text implies the need for documentary evidence of expenditures on transfer, invoices for improvements, receipts of distributions from business trusts (to adjust cost of acquisition), and documentation of initial purchase currency for foreign purchasers. Not stated in the document: retention periods or prescribed formats for such records.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 72 prescribes the basic arithmetic for computing capital gains: full value of consideration less specified deductions.
      • Indexation of acquisition and improvement costs applies only "in cases, as prescribed" under the Bill; the enacted Act narrows indexation to a specific formula context (item B of s.197(3)).
      • Certain amounts (specified interest and securities transaction tax) are explicitly non-deductible.
      • Special rules adjust cost of acquisition for amounts received from business trusts and provide prescribed deductions for specified entities receiving value under s.67(10).
      • Non-residents dealing with Indian company shares/debentures compute gains by converting relevant amounts into the original purchase currency before reconversion; rupee appreciation gains on rupee bonds are ignored for full value computation.
      • The Bill leaves several operative details to "prescription" (indexation cases, calculation manner for specified entities, rates for currency conversion in the Bill text), creating reliance on subordinate rules; the enacted Act addresses some of these lacunae more expressly (notably exchange-rate prescription in the Act but not in the Bill).

      Full Text:

      Section 72 Mode of computation of capital gains.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax