Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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