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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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