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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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