Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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