No change in LTCG tax rates under Income Tax Bill 2025, clarifies IT dept
According to the department, the new bill is focused solely on simplifying legal language and removing redundant or obsolete provisions from the current law. It emphasised that the draft legislation does not contain any proposals for altering tax rates applicable to any category of taxpayers.
"Any ambiguity in this respect shall be duly addressed during the passing of the Bill," the department said in its statement on X.
The Income Tax Bill 2025 is expected to replace the existing Income Tax Act of 1961 and has been designed to modernise the tax code, making it more streamlined and easier to navigate, particularly in the context of increasing digital integration and compliance automation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Constitutional validity does not mean desirability, ex-CJI Khanna tells one nation, one election panel
Former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna has told a parliamentary committee scrutinising the simultaneous election Bill that the constitutional validity of a proposal in no way amounts to a pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of its provisions. In his written opinion to the committee, Justice Khanna, however, said arguments related to the dilution of the country's federal structure might be raised about the constitutional amendment Bill, as he listed the various claims made supporting and criticising the concept, sources said. Most of the experts, who have shared their views with the committee headed by BJP MP P.P. Chaudhary, have rejected the charge that the proposals are unconstitutional but have flagged some issues with the current provisions of the Bill. Justice Khanna, who is scheduled to interact with the committee on Tuesday (August 19, 2025), has joined a few other former CJIs in raising concerns over the extent of power given to the Election Commission (EC) in the Bill. He said the Bill conferred "unfettered discretion" on the EC in deciding that an Assembly poll could not be conducted along with that of the Lok Sabha, and to make a recommendation to the President on these lines, the sources said. "This clause will be open to question as violating and offending the basic structure of the Constitution on the ground of being arbitrary and offending Article 14 of the Constitution," he is learnt to have said. Article 14 deals with equality before law. Indirect President's rule Justice Khanna added, "Postponement of elections by the EC may result in indirect President's rule, in other words, the Union government taking over the reins of the State government. This will be questionable judicially, as violating the federal structure envisaged by the Constitution." Commenting on various arguments related to the Bill, he said the fact that simultaneous elections were held in 1951-52, 1957, 1962 and 1967, was a "coincidence", certainly not an express or not even an implied constitutional mandate. Justice Khanna said there was a difference between "merit review" and "judicial review". When the Supreme Court or High Courts uphold constitutional validity, it was a mere affirmation of the legislative power and that the amendment or the provision was not violative of the constitutional limitations, he said. "The court decisions in no way amount to pronouncement upon the desirability or necessity of such provisions," he added. Before Justice Khanna, former CJIs D.Y. Chandrachud, J.S. Khehar, U.U. Lalit and Ranjan Gogoi have interacted with the committee members on various provisions of what is often referred to as "one nation one election" Bill. The BJP and its allies have supported the Bill, asserting that it will boost growth by cutting down on expenditure caused by the relentless poll cycle, leading to frequent deployment of security and civil officials on poll duty and the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct. The Opposition has argued that it undermines democratic principles and weakens federal structure.
Hans India
3 hours ago
- Hans India
Sri Lanka to expand free trade agreements to boost exports, foreign exchange
The Sri Lankan government plans to sign more free trade agreements (FTAs) with foreign partners to diversify its export markets and boost foreign exchange earnings, media reports said on Sunday, citing a senior official. Deputy Minister of Industry and Entrepreneurship Development Chathuranga Abeysinghe said market diversification is critical to building a competitive and resilient export sector, Xinhua News Agency reported. He noted that expanding trade partnerships will not only help diversify products but also strengthen integration into global supply chains. The government is also focused on increasing value addition and building stronger brand recognition, he said. Abeysinghe highlighted that Sri Lanka's apparel exports generated more than $5 billion in 2024. The government aims to raise that figure to $8 billion by 2030. In July, the Sri Lankan government gazetted the Presidents' Entitlements (Repeal) Bill, aiming to abolish special privileges granted to former Presidents and their widows. The bill follows cabinet approval to amend the Presidents' Entitlements Act No. 4 of 1986. The proposed changes are designed to end longstanding benefits for former presidents and their widows. Sri Lanka currently provides a range of privileges for these groups. Earlier this year, a government minister disclosed that the state spent more than Rs 1.1 billion (about $3.7 million) in 2024 on benefits for former Presidents. The move to repeal these entitlements fulfils a key pledge of the current administration. On July 22, the Cabinet of Ministers approved the publication of a draft bill to repeal the Presidents' Entitlements Act, effectively revoking special privileges granted to former Presidents and their families. The move is in line with the government's policy declaration 'Pohosath Ratak – Lassana Jeewithayak', which pledges to reduce state expenditure and promote accountability.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Longer jail sentences, UP as template: All about Uttarakhand's Bill against forced religious conversion
The Uttarakhand Cabinet approved making the legal provisions against forced religious conversion more stringent in the state, including by raising the duration of jail sentences and expanding the definition of 'conversion', on Tuesday (August 12). Notably, many provisions in the proposed Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill, 2025, have been directly lifted from the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion (Amendment) Act, 2024. For example, the maximum punishment has been raised to 20 years or a life term for some offences. The Bill will now be tabled in the legislative assembly, which is scheduled to be convened from August 19. It comes amid the government alleging an increase in religious conversions, primarily focusing on women. The BJP has frequently invoked the term 'love jihad' to accuse those in interfaith relationships. Couples getting married under the Special Marriages Act of 1954 have also faced flak and threats from right-wing groups in the state, recently. The law is often preferred by people from different religions, who do not want to rely on any one faith's personal laws for registering their marriage. Here is what to know. What are the major changes under the amendment? First, the Bill expands the definition of what constitutes conversion. According to officials, a new clause adds that no person shall 'incite or conspire for such religious conversion by any means, including digital means'. This refers to e-mail and even instant messaging, which could create communities of people who share interests and activities that could provide 'modes to influence users'. According to a government communication, 'digital means' also includes social networking websites that allow individuals to construct a public or semi-public profile and to create a list of users with mutual connections. Other amendments define certain offences, such as depicting the practices or ceremonies of any religion in a derogatory manner in comparison to another religion. Acts of glorifying one religion in opposition to another can also be penalised. However, the provision's vagueness raises questions of how criticism of religious practices or institutions could be unfairly targeted. The definition of 'victim' has also been expanded to include anyone who has suffered any harm or injury due to the offence, extending to a person's guardian and legal heir. Another addition is that if a person 'conceals' their religion with the intention of marriage, they can face three to 10 years in prison and a fine of Rs 3 lakh. Moreover, if property is acquired through an offence related to conversion, the District Magistrate can seize it. The burden of proof lies on the accused. This is a reversal of normal procedure in a criminal case, where the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Punishments have also been made more severe for many offences: *The Uttarakhand Freedom of Religion Act, 2018, stipulated a prison term of up to five years for anyone convicted of 'forced or fraudulent' religious conversion through coercion, incitement, or allurement. A 2022 amendment to the Act stated that such conversion was to be punished with a term not less than two years and may extend to seven years with a fine not less than Rs 25,000. If the 'forcibly' converted person was a minor, a woman, or a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe, they shall be punished with imprisonment for a term between two to 10 years and also be liable to a minimum Rs 25,000 fine. Under the 2025 amendment, fraudulent conversion will attract between three to 10 years in jail and a minimum fine of Rs 50,000. If the victim is a minor, woman, SC/ST individual, or a person with disability, the punishment will be five to 14 years in jail and a fine of at least Rs 1 lakh. *The 2018 Act defined 'mass conversion' as where two or more people are converted. The 2022 amendment said the accused shall be punished with a minimum of three years of imprisonment, which could extend to 10 years, along with a fine of at least Rs 50,000. Now, the prison term will be raised to seven to 14 years, with a minimum fine of Rs 1 lakh. Further, two new offences had only been mentioned in the 2018 Act. One of them prevented anyone violating the law from seeking funds from abroad. Under the new amendment, if the offence involves foreign or banned funding, the accused will face seven to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of at least Rs 10 lakh. In cases where the accused uses threats, assault, trafficking, or marriage as a 'ploy' for conversion, the punishment will be 20 years to life imprisonment, along with a fine meant to cover the victim's medical costs and rehabilitation. What were the amendments in 2022? In 2022, a slew of new provisions expanded the definitions and increased the punishment. Apart from a maximum imprisonment of up to 10 years, the amendment also expanded the ambit of those who can be deemed complainants. Any aggrieved person, their parents, brother, sister, or anyone related to them by blood, marriage or adoption could lodge an FIR. One of the most contentious provisions was the declaration to be submitted by a converted person to the DM office within 60 days of the conversion, with their details. This included date of birth, current address, father's/husband's name, their religion before and after conversion, the date and place of conversion, and more. It was to be displayed publicly for objections, and after 21 days, the DM was to summon the person for confirmation of the details and register the objections received. Non-adherence will lead to the conversion being deemed illegal and void. The 2022 amendment had made all the offences under this Act cognizable — for which police can arrest someone without a warrant — and non-bailable — where bail is not automatically guaranteed. How is it similar to the UP Amendment of 2024? In UP, for unlawful conversions involving a minor, a woman, or an SC/ST individual, the prison term was raised from two to 10 years to five to 14 years, the same as the Uttarakhand proposal. The minimum fine has also been raised to Rs 1 lakh. Other commonalities include the section on 'foreign' funds or funds from 'illegal institutions' for unlawful conversion, and crimes (including trafficking) having a minimum 20 years imprisonment extending to life imprisonment. The UP Amendment, however, gave the right to file a complaint to anyone, including third-parties. This, at least for now, is absent in the Uttarakhand Bill. Where it stands amid earlier laws in the state In a state with around 14 per cent Muslim population, similar to the all-India level, the BJP has been levelling allegations of demographic change and the entry of people from adjoining regions in UP. The BJP government has raised this as a political issue and introduced several policies in response. The amendment comes on the heels of a crackdown on 'illegal' madrasas, which were allegedly not registered with the state Madrasa Board or the education department. Earlier this year, Uttarakhand became the first state to implement a Uniform Civil Code, which is currently being challenged in the High Court. The government has also amended the land laws to curb 'outsiders' from purchasing agricultural land in non-municipal areas.
