Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 197 "Tax on long-term capital gains." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      4 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 197 Tax on long-term capital gains.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document examined is Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), which sets out methodology for taxing long-term capital gains (LTCG) in India. It matters to individual/HUF taxpayers, non-residents/foreign companies, and the revenue department as it prescribes computation and special reliefs (for certain land/building transfers). Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document beyond the reference date of acquisition (23rd July, 2024) used for transitional relief.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) - titled "Tax on long-term capital gains." Context: establishes the method of computing tax where total income includes income charged under the head "Capital gains" arising from transfer of long-term capital assets. Coverage: persons whose total income includes LTCG; special rules for resident individuals/HUFs and transitional relief for land/building acquired before 23 July 2024. Definitions provided for "securities," "listed securities," "unlisted securities," and "indexed cost of acquisition/improvement" by cross-reference to section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 and section 72 respectively. The Bill provides no broader policy rationale beyond the operative computation provisions.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 197 prescribes a two-part taxation method for assessee whose total income includes LTCG: (a) compute income-tax on total income excluding LTCG as if that reduced amount were the total income; (b) compute tax on LTCG at a flat 12.5% rate; tax payable is aggregate of (a) and (b). Sub-section (2) creates an exemption mechanism for resident individual/HUFs where reduced total income falls below the basic exemption limit: LTCG is reduced to the extent the reduced total income falls short of the basic exemption, with balance taxed at 12.5%. Sub-section (3) supplies a transitional relief for resident individual/HUF transfers of land or building acquired before 23 July 2024: excess income-tax computed under a specified formula E = A - B is to be ignored, where A is tax computed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) and B is tax computed under clause (b) of sub-section (1) taking rate as 20% and gains computed using indexed cost of acquisition/improvement. Sub-section (4) (in the Bill) provides a deduction rule for gross total income: where gross total income includes LTCG, gross total income shall be reduced by such income and the deduction under Chapter VIII shall be allowed as if the reduced gross total income were the gross total income. Sub-section (5) contains definitional cross-references.

      Interpretation

      The clause reflects an intent to segregate LTCG from other income for rate application while preserving progressive taxation principles for non-LTCG income (by taxing non-LTCG income at normal rates and LTCG at a concessional flat rate). The resident individual/HUF provision in sub-section (2) operates as a mechanism to preserve exemption threshold benefits for personal taxpayers by allowing an adjustment of LTCG to the extent necessary to retain the basic exemption. The transitional mechanism in sub-section (3) indicates a legislative intent to mitigate potential tax increases resulting from the change in rate/calculation methodology for land/building acquired before the specified date (23 July 2024), by effectively capping excess tax to the difference between tax computed under the new 12.5% regime and what would have been payable under a 20% rate with indexed costs.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Sub-section (2) operates as a proviso-type relief for resident individuals/HUFs relating to the basic exemption limit. Sub-section (3) provides a special transitional carve-out applicable only to resident individual/HUF transfers of land or building acquired before the specified date; it effectively reduces the incremental tax burden to nil up to a calculated excess. No other explicit exceptions or provisos are contained. The Bill does not state any exception for equity shares or units within the operative text (although the explanatory line appended asserts such exclusions-see "Not stated in the document." on legislative exclusion beyond the explanatory note).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (Resident individual with basic exemption): Taxpayer's other income (excluding LTCG) = INR 2,00,000; basic exemption limit = Not stated in the document. Therefore precise computational illustration with amounts is Not stated in the document. The mechanism: LTCG is reduced by amount by which reduced total income falls short of the basic exemption; remaining LTCG taxed at 12.5%.
      • Example 2 (Transitional relief for land): Resident individual sells land acquired before 23 July 2024. Compute A = tax on LTCG at 12.5%; compute B = tax on LTCG assuming 20% rate and gains computed with indexed cost. Excess E = A - B; E is ignored. Numerical details and rates for other slabs are Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      Definitions rely on cross-references: "securities" per section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956; "indexed cost" meanings per section 72. The Bill refers to Chapter VIII deductions (for computation of gross total income) but does not cite specific sections; the interplay with section 72 is invoked in the transitional relief clause. The document does not set out interactions with other specific notifications, circulars or international tax treaty provisions. Not stated in the document: whether the section supersedes earlier provisions, or how it interacts with any existing capital gains exemptions/rollovers elsewhere in the Bill/Act.

      Differences between Section 197 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 197 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) 

      Summary of textual differences and their practical impact.

      • Sub-section numbering and cross-references: The Act version (Document 1) contains sub-sections (1)-(6), while the Bill old version (Document 2) contains sub-sections (1)-(5).
        • Practical impact: The Act adds new sub-section (4) in Document 1 dealing specifically with computation of long-term capital gains for non-residents/foreign companies in respect of unlisted securities or shares of private companies (i.e. exclusion of section 72(6) effect). Document 1 also reindexes the definitions block into sub-section (6) whereas the Bill had definitions in sub-section (5). This indicates an expansion of scope and greater specificity in the enacted provision compared to the Bill.
      • Non-resident / foreign company carve-out (new in Act): Document 1, sub-section (4), provides: "In the case of an assessee being a non-resident (not being a company) or a foreign company, the long term capital gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset, being unlisted securities or shares of a company not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, shall be computed without giving effect to the provisions u/s 72(6)." This paragraph is absent from Document 2.
        • Practical impact: The Act expressly exempts or adjusts the manner of computing LTCG for non-residents/foreign companies for certain unlisted securities by excluding set-off provisions u/s 72(6). This alters tax incidence and computation mechanics for such taxpayers, potentially increasing taxable gains where section 72(6) would otherwise allow set-off or carry-forward treatment; it introduces a distinct regime for cross-border disposals of private-company equity.
      • Transitional date language: Both texts reference 23rd July, 2024 for acquisition date in the special formula addressing land/building acquired before that date. The Bill (Document 2) phrases it "which is acquired before the 23rd July, 2024," whereas the Act (Document 1) uses "which was acquired before the 23rd July, 2024."
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting edit with no substantive difference in effect.
      • Formula variable references: In the Bill (Document 2) the formula explanation for A and B refers to "clause (b) of sub-section (1)" and "clause (b) of sub-section (1)" respectively, whereas the Act (Document 1) uses "sub-section (1)(b)" and in the description of B explicitly mentions taking rate as 20% and computing capital gains by taking cost of acquisition/improvement as "indexed cost..."
        • Practical impact: Substantive content is materially the same; the Act's wording is marginally clearer and consistent in cross-references.
      • Indexed cost definitions placement: In the Bill (Document 2) definitions (securities/listed/unlisted/indexed cost meanings) are in sub-section (5) with slightly different punctuation and parentheses. The Act relocates and numbers these definitions as sub-section (6) and includes an explicit dash preceding them.
        • Practical impact: Organizational only; no substantive change to defined meanings.
      • Explanatory sentence present in Bill but not in Act: Document 2 contains an explanatory sentence at the end: "Clause 197 of the Bill provides for taxation of long-term capital gains where the capital gains arise from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (other than an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity-oriented fund or a unit of a business trust)." This explanatory note is absent in Document 1.
        • Practical impact: The Bill text includes a drafting note describing the intended coverage (excluding specified equity-oriented assets); the Act omits that explanatory sentence in the published section text. Practically, the exclusion relied on in that explanatory line is not explicit within the section's operative text in either document; reliance on such explanatory notes is limited.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must segregate LTCG from other income and compute tax in two limbs. Resident individuals/HUFs must monitor whether their non-LTCG income falls below the exemption threshold to avail the LTCG reduction under sub-section (2). For land/building transfers acquired before 23 July 2024, taxpayers must compute dual tax calculations (12.5% approach vs 20% with indexed cost) to quantify any excess for relief under sub-section (3).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: To apply sub-section (3) relief and indexed cost computations u/s 72, taxpayers will need documentary evidence of acquisition dates, acquisition/improvement costs, and records sufficient to compute indexed cost of acquisition/improvement (Not stated in the document: specific documentary formats or retention periods).

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 197 prescribes a bifurcated tax computation for LTCG: normal tax on other income and 12.5% on LTCG.
      • Resident individuals/HUFs get relief preserving the basic exemption limit by reducing LTCG to the extent necessary.
      • Transitional relief for resident individual/HUF transfers of land/building acquired before 23 July 2024 caps excess tax by comparing the 12.5% computation with a 20% indexed-cost computation.
      • The Bill provides definitional cross-references to the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act and section 72 for indexed cost meanings.
      • Practical compliance will require separate LTCG computations and retention of acquisition/improvement records to substantiate indexed cost calculations.
      • Notably, the Bill text itself does not contain the non-resident/foreign company carve-out that appears in the enacted Act; practitioners should note the enacted change in the final Act (Document 1).

      Full Text:

      Section 197 Tax on long-term capital gains.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax