Indexation Benefits on Capital Gains

 History 

 Originally, capital gains were made taxable vide insertion of Section 12-B into the Income Tax Act, 1922. The present income tax legislation, viz. the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) taxes income of the nature of capital gains under Section 45. Initially, capital gains as per Section 48, was determined as the di erence between the full value of consideration and the total cost of acquisition/improvement and expenses incurred in connection with the transfer. Vide the Finance Act, 1987, an amendment was carried out conferring a standard deduction at speci ed percentages in computing the income under the head “capital gains”. 

 Introduction of concept of indexation 

 In the year 1991, a Tax Reforms Committee, Ministry of Finance, Government of India (‘Government’), spearheaded by Dr Raja J. Chelliah, was constituted to examine the structure of direct and indirect taxes. The Committee, through a published interim report, recommended that the Government should factor indexation in computation of capital gains. Taking due cognizance of the said recommendation, the then Finance Minister stated in the Budget Speech dated 29-02-1992 of Financial Year (FY) 1992-1993: “The present tax treatment of long-term capital gains (LTCG) has been criticised on the grounds that the deduction allowed in computing taxable gain is not related to the period of time for which the asset has been held. It does not consider the in ation that may have occurred over time.” 2 A second proviso was inserted into Section 48 to provide that while computing capital gains in respect of a long-term capital asset, an assessee will be permitted to reduce indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement. The manner of computing the indexed costs was also stipulated and was linked to the noti ed cost in ation index(ices) (CII) of respective years in which the asset was acquired and transferred. The base year for CII was initially kept at 1-4-1981. However, vide the Finance Act, 2017, an amendment was made to Section 55(2)(b) of the IT Act and the said base year for CII shifted to 1-4-2001. Further, for the purposes of cost of acquisition, an assessee was permitted to adopt either the actual cost or the fair market value as on 1-4-2001, wherever the date of acquisition of the capital asset was prior to the said date. 

 Proposed amendment vide the Finance Bill, 2024 and subsequent amendment to the said Bill 

 Section 112 of the IT Act provides for taxation of LTCG. At present, the rate of tax on long-term capital gains is 20% and the capital gains is computed by considering the indexed cost of acquisition and indexed cost of improvement. The Finance Bill, 2024 amended Section 112 to reduce the rate of taxation of long-term capital gains to 12.5%, while withdrawing the bene t of indexation for any transfers that took place after 23-6-2024. However, this Amendment proposed by the Government met with a lot of hue and cry from all taxpayers and one signi cant criticism was that removal of indexation bene t can greatly a ect the lower income and middle-class groups. Thus, the Government moved an amendment to Section 112 of the IT Act. Post the said Amendment, the second proviso to Section 112 has been inserted wherein it is provided that in case of transfer of land or building or both, which is acquired before 23-7-2024, where the income tax computed exceeds the income tax computed in accordance with the provisions of the IT Act, as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2024, such excess shall be ignored. In essence, the second proviso provides that for long-term capital assets (being land or building) acquired before 23-7-2024, the assessee has been conferred with the following alternatives for computation of LTCG— 

 1. Compute the tax on LTCG at 20% after considering the bene t of indexation. 

 2. Compute the tax on LTCG at 12.5% without considering the bene t of indexation. 

 It is pertinent to note that the option of choosing between the said regimes is available only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The same does not extend to other assessees i.e. domestic companies, rms, limited liability partnerships (LLP), etc. Further, the above choice between two alternatives is only available to transfer of land or building. It clearly does not cover other long term capital assets like gold. The applicability of bene t to transfer of other capital assets like leasehold rights can be a potential subject-matter of dispute on whether such rights should be treated on par with land or building or otherwise. 

 Removal of the bene t of indexation — an effect of treatment in other countries 

 If one were to examine the tax treatment accorded by other countries, USA does not currently provide for a bene t of indexation. The United Kingdom originally conferred the said bene t, however, in 2008, the indexation bene t was altogether removed for individuals and the indexation bene t was paused from 2018 for corporates. Australia confers indexation bene t, and the tax laws provide for indexation as one of the methods for calculating capital gains. However, Australian tax laws permit indexation for in ation only up to 30-9-1999 i.e. the indexation factor shall be the consumer price index as on 30-9 1999. The proposal to withdraw indexation bene ts eventually could be an attempt towards tax simpli cation and aligning with certain global practices in general in calculating tax liabilities. 

 Parity with other sources of income

 Indexation bene t under the law was conferred only to income under the head capital gains. The grant of such bene t ensured that accretion to investments made solely on account of in ation was not taxed and only the appreciation in value of the underlying asset was taxed. Such a bene t though may have been equally relevant, was not conferred to any other source of income. For instance, if a real estate dealer engaging in purchase and sale of immovable properties as a business, purchased a land parcel in 2009 and sold it in 2023, the net gain being the simple di erence between the sale consideration and cost of acquisition would be taxed, while permitting such a person to claim for all expenses incurred in this connection. On the contrary, for an assessee holding such a land parcel as capital asset, gains would be computed factoring indexation. Thus, the legislature’s intent to ultimately sunset the indexation bene t for capital gains would lead to greater parity between the computation of income under di erent heads. However, a person carrying on business may still enjoy a better tax bene t stemming from the larger bucket of possible expense deductions available. 

 Conclusion 

 Indeed, when the Budget proposals originally contained a move to completely whitewash indexation bene t, it sent shock waves across the taxpayers considering that such a proposal notwithstanding the reduction in taxes could result in an increased tax out ow especially for the taxpayers belonging to lower and middle-income groups for whom the additional out ow could be a serious cause of concern. The subsequent amendment made to the Finance Bill to provide individuals and HUFs with an option to choose the method of computation has been welcome across the nation. If tax simpli cation is one of the objectives, then certainly, reducing rates and withdrawing multiple complications would ease the tax compliances and tax administration. However, it would be in the interest of both taxpayers and tax administrators alike that the legislature achieves its goal of tax simpli cation in a slow and seamless manner that equally takes into cognizance the pulse of the taxpayers and the impact on the exchequer

Whither Indian IP Academics’ Engagement with the Judiciary?: Some Thoughts for Discussion

 Recently, Praharsh revived a discussion about the not-very-active state of IP academic interventions in India while sharing the news of the appointment of Prof. Arul Scaria by the Delhi High Court as an “expert” in a copyright case. Prashant raised similar questions a few years ago when Prof. Basheer was appointed, as an “academic intervenor” in the Novartis case. Swaraj, during our conversations about Indian IP thinking and IP academia, has also made similar points several times as to —why Indian IP academics don’t write amicus briefs and intervene in court proceedings involving public interest considerations as their American counterparts.

In other words, why is Indian IP scholars’ engagement with the judiciary involving IP issues limited, or perhaps, rare? Certainly, there lurks a bigger question about IP professors’ engagement with Indian IP policy in general. Here, professors like N. S. Gopalakrishnan, and Arul Scaria come to mind who have been invited to assist with certain IP issues. However, I limit this post to the involvement with the judiciary and see two types of involvement. One is proactive engagement like court interventions. Second is by being invited as an expert/advisor to comment/engage with certain important matters.

This, for sure, places us in a web of interrelated questions about the role and the status quo of IP education, professors, and legal education in India. The question is worth raising particularly given the government’s efforts to cultivate IP expertise, especially since the 2000s, with the creation of MHRD (now DPIIT) “IP Chairs.” While these questions deserve deeper exploration—perhaps through empirical research, which I/we aim to do in the future, for now, I want to share some initial thoughts on the issue in this two-part post. The first part discusses the extant legal framework around such academic involvement underscoring its historical context. Part two deduces the hypotheses from the discussion, and underscores broader research questions, hoping to receive some comments from our readers.

(Note: While I write this in the context of IP law, the key claims/ideas/questions can be expanded to other fields. Similarly, while I make the case for academics here, it can perhaps be argued that attention is warranted on the role of civil society in Indian IP thinking and policy-making, Internationally, civil society groups / NGOs and academics have played important roles in engaging with and nuancing or providing useful feedback on the development of IP norms. Moreover, this post does not delve in depth given the space constraints. However, I trust that the arguments and questions won’t lose their significance entirely if developed with the appropriate contextual nuance.)

The Legal Mechanisms for Academic Interventions

There are three ways to participate in Court proceedings, 1.) Impleader 2.) Expert, and 3.) Amicus Curiae. The general rule in a civil suit is that only those parties against whom the plaintiff makes a case are made parties to the suit. However, under Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 grants discretion to the Court to add a party to  the case, either upon request or on its own initiative, if it believes that the party’s presence is necessary to “effectually adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.” This is called impleadment. This needs highlighting, as this piece on Intervention Culture does, that impleadement and intervention are different concepts. While the former results in the addition of the applicant as a party to the proceedings, intervention simply enables the applicant to address the Court without formally becoming a party to the case.

This is where Order I Rule 8(a) comes to the fore, on the court’s power to allow a person or body of persons to present an opinion or participate in the proceedings. It empowers the court to allow a person or body of persons “interested in any question of law in issue in the suit, and that it is in the public interest” to present its opinion, and take such part in the proceedings. Here’s a hiccup, however. For we have got an open term here – “interested” – which may raise a question as to whether mere academic interest is sufficient or whether one has to be affected by the outcome of the decision to be called an “interested party”. 

Fret not, provision’s history would help here. It appears that the provision was inserted for a very such intervention! It was recommended by the 54th Report of the Law Commission, 1973, and inspired by Article 30 of the Fundamentals of Soviet Civil Legislation. The commission reasoned that “The [Indian Civil] Code has, at present, no provision for permitting the joinder of an organisation interested in the legal issues in a suit, i.e. an organisation which, though not concerned with the narrow questions of fact arising between the parties has a view to offer on some broader issues.” The Commission also differentiated the provision from “the practice of appointing an amicus curiae, because the organisation concerned would have its own views to present, and its role would not be confined to assisting the court, though its participation may help the court in elucidation of some of the issues.” Tellingly, even after the clear listing of the provision’s purpose, the Calcutta HC interpreted the provision narrowly in In Re v. Samarjit Chakraborty. See also, this Allahabad HC case which throws light on the provision.

An example here is the DU Photocopy case saw a group of academics and students joining the suit as “impleaders” under the CPC).

Another way to participate is by being appointed as an “expert,” as given in the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872, or Section 39 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. Similarly, as highlighted above, pertinent Rule 31 of the Delhi High Court IPR Division Rules, 2022 allows the court to seek “expert” assistance in IPR matters, including from individuals and institutions. Another interesting provision exists in the DHC Patent Rules empowering the court to “draw up a panel of “Advisors” to assist Judges in deciding patent suits, which explicitly includes academicians. An example here is Prof. Arul Scaria was appointed as an “expert” under Rule 31 Of the DHC IPD Rules in a copyright case by the Delhi High Court. 

The third way is by being an “amicus curiae,” which is narrowly defined in the Supreme Court Rules (see  Order 5 Rule 1(c) limited to cases involving “petitions or appeals from jail or unrepresented parties.” The same is presumably true for High Court rules in various states. Moreover, these rules make only Advocates, (i.e., those who are enrolled in the bar and practice in courts) eligible for this role. Interestingly, the term “academic intervenor,” or more accurately, “intervenor-cum-amicus”, as used by the Supreme Court to describe Professor Basheer in the Novartis case, isn’t a legal term as such.

In the U.S., filing amicus briefs is a more common practice than in India, and the requirements for such filings are provided in the US Supreme Court Rules 33.1, 34, and other courts’ rules. Rule 37(1) specifies that an amicus brief should bring new and relevant information to the Court’s attention that has not been raised by the parties involved. Also, the party has to seek the Court’s leave to file the brief. Importantly, as in India, the US law requires such amicus to be attorneys admitted to practice.

Final Thoughts

In sum, the idea of “amicus curiae” in India, as in the US, is institutionalized to be a role for lawyers. As I mentioned in the beginning, this leaves us with two types of engagement with court decisions by IP professors: first, through active participation by requesting to participate as per CPC, examples are the DU Photocopy and Novartis cases; or second, by being appointed as an expert by the Court, like Prof. Scaria. 

This is where things get a tad tricky. For one, unlike the USA, Indian full-time academics are barred from practice in the courts so technically they cannot be amicus curiae as they cannot be advocates. The issue received attention in Anees Ahmed And Anr. vs University Of Delhi And Ors which negatively answered the question of whether a faculty member in the Faculty of Law at the University of Delhi can enroll as an advocate, appear in court, and simultaneously fulfill hir responsibilities as a full-time faculty member. Reliance was placed, among other laws, on Rule 3 Advocates (Right To Take Up Law Teaching) Rules, 1979 which gives a practicing Advocate a right to teach law not exceeding three hours a day. However, Professor Basheer, in his petition to the Bar Council, argued that this case was per incuriam and made a convincing case for allowing legal academics to practice law.

How to Check an MD5 Checksum of torrent file on desktop/laptop (PC/MAC) in 2023

 MD5 verification of downloaded media or files.

Description:

When downloading files for patching or drivers you may need to verify the file is complete.  This can be done by verifying the MD5 checksum from the steps below on your PC or Mac workstation.

Solution:

Windows

1. Open the Windows command line.
   Press Windows + R, type cmd and press Enter.
   Alternative: You can also open command prompt or Windows PowerShell from the Start menu, of course.

2. Go to the folder that contains the file whose MD5 checksum you want to check and verify.

   Command: Type cd followed by the path to the folder.
   Tip: You can drag and drop a folder from Windows Explorer to insert the path.

3. Type the command below

   certutil -hashfile <file> MD5

   Replace <file> with the filename.
   
   Tip: You can use the Tab key to have Windows complete the file name.
   Example to get the MD5 hash for the file Example.txt:

   certutil -hashfile Example.txt MD5

4. Press Enter.
   Compare the resulting checksum to what you expect:
   

​​​​​Mac

1. Open Terminal.
2. Navigate to the folder that contains the file whose MD5 checksum you want to verify.
3. You can open Terminal right at a folder from Finder.
4. Type md5 followed by the filename:

   md5 <file>

   Dragging and dropping: You can also type md5, then drag and drop the file you want to check onto the Terminal window.

5. Press Enter.

Windows 10 - Why is my usable RAM only half of my Installed RAM?

Why is Only Half My RAM Usable?

It can be frustrating to see that the PC you spent a lot of money on only uses half the RAM you put on it. There are numerous factors that can cause this issue and, fortunately, they do have fixes.

If you have been experiencing the issue that only half of your RAM is usable, the first fix below might do it for you already.

So, if you’re asking why only half of your RAM is usable, these are the most common causes and the fixes to unleash your RAM to full capacity.

Only Half of RAM is Usable: Causes & Fixes

Windows installation

We’ll start by trying to determine why only half of your RAM is usable on Windows 10.

If you remember how you installed your Windows operating system on your PC, you should know if you have installed the 64-bit or the 32-bit version. To double-check, you can open the systems information application and check your PC’s specifications.

On your Window search bar, type systems information and open it. Once you open it, go to the systems summary tab and you will be able to see a ton of information about your computer. Look for “System Type” and you will see if you are currently running a 32-bit or a 64-bit Windows.

Another way to check is by opening “Dxdiag” from your computer. You can search it on the Windows tab or run the keyword on the Command Prompt. When you open Dxdiag, look for your operating system and it should say something like “Windows 10 Pro 64-bit”.

The reason you are checking this is that if you are running a 32-bit system, your computer can only access 4GB of RAM. The difference between a 32-bit and 64-bit system is immense.

At this point, if you see yourself running a 32-bit system, you have identified the problem right away and the only way to fix it is by reinstalling your operating system (Windows) to a 64-bit installation.

Memory Limitation

Another possible issue would be your computer having a set limitation for the usable memory available on your computer. It has to be manually applied but it does happen that this might be the cause of the problem.

To fix the issue, go to your search bar and open “run”. Type “msconfig” to bring up the system’s configuration settings.

You can also just search system configuration on the Windows search bar and open the application. On system configuration, go to the boot tab and click advanced options.

You will see “Maximum memory” with a check box. Make sure to untick the check box so that your PC can freely use all the memory your PC has at the moment.

Check if your RAM is connected properly

Before you blame your PC for only using half the RAM available, check your RAM physically if it is connected properly on your motherboard’s DIMM slots. Use a trial-and-error if you see that it is properly connected.

This is to check if the RAM is faulty or not. Attach one RAM at a time and boot the PC up.

Open the task manager and check your memory usage. Just open the performance tab and check the memory capacity and usage if it aligns with the RAM you just connected to your PC. Do this for each of your RAM sticks by turning off the computer and reconnecting the other RAM stick after booting.

Generally, you might want to do this option last since you might be able to fix your memory with the other methods especially if you are unfamiliar with building PCs.

Registry Editor

Export your Registry Editor first so you can restore it to the original settings if you do something wrong. This is important because if you make mistakes in deleting or editing other files here, things can go wrong when you use your PC.

Once you open the Registry Editor, look to the left table and find the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE folder. Under that, find Systems and then CurrentControlSet (1 word). Find Control under the CurrentControlSet and then Session Manager. Under Session Manager, find the Memory Management folder. This should be the last folder out of this long list of steps.

To sum it up – HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > Systems > CurrentControlSet > Control > Session Manager > Memory Management

Inside the Memory Management folder, switch to the right table and find “ClearPageFileAtShutdown”. Once you open it, you will see the value name, value data, and base. Just change the value data from 0 to 1. If it was already set to 1, it is already fine.

Conclusion

It is best to go in order when you follow these steps in fixing your usable RAM.

It can be risky to break open your PC or tweaking the registry. If you have no choice, it is better to take precautions on how to carefully open your PC to check your RAM because all the parts are fragile.

If you absolutely have no idea how to open your PC, it is best to just bring it to a computer store and have it checked for a fee. Most likely, they will be fixing everything for you.

If you have a broken RAM, you can check how many RAM slots you have and also see how to check your RAM type for your current PC build. Both can be done through the task manager and researching your motherboard’s specifications. This is for adding new RAM sticks for your PC build if you really need more memory.

30% Tax, 1% TDS on Digital Assets Transfer - India

 Revenue Secretary Tarun Bajaj said on Wednesday that income tax return forms from next year will have a separate column for making disclosures on gains made from cryptocurrencies and paying taxes, according to a PTI report.

The government will from April 1 charge a 30 per cent tax plus cess and surcharges, on any income from transfer of any virtual digital asset. Gift of virtual digital asset will also be taxed in the hands of the recipient.

Loss from transfer of virtual digital asset cannot be set off against any other income. To capture the transaction details, Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) will be provided on payment made in relation to transfer of virtual digital asset at the rate of 1 per cent.

Fix: Windows Update Error Code 0x800f0922

This article will help you to fix Windows Update error code 0x800f0922 received after failure of update installation in Windows 10.

It is often recommended that you install latest available updates in your Windows 10. However, sometimes you may not be able to finish installing updates due to an error code. 0x800f0922 is one of such error code which you may receive with Windows Updates. In this article, we will see why this error code appears and how you can fix Windows Update error code 0x800f0922.

You can see in the above screenshot, the error code 0x800f0922 appeared while installation of a cumulative update is failed. You can receive this error code on any of the Windows edition. In Windows, technically the error code 0x800f0922 interpreted as CBS_E_INSTALLERS_FAILED. When you’re getting this, it means processing advanced installers and generic commands failed. This error code is not specific to Windows Update, as it a general error code. It can be often spotted while installing .NET Framework.

The error code 0x800f0922 can appear due to following reason. PerfCounterInstaller, the installer Windows Update is using, may have its counter database corrupted. You can easily fix it using Command Prompt.

Here’s how to fix Windows Update error code 0x800f0922.

Fix: Windows Update Error Code 0x800f0922

FIX 1 – Using Command Prompt

1. Right click Start Button or press W8K + X keys and select Command Prompt (Admin) to open Command Prompt as administrator.

2. In the Command Prompt window, type following command and press Enter key. It will simply fix the counter database.

lodctr /R

If the command execution is successful, you would receive ‘Info: Successfully rebuilt performance counter setting from system backup store’ message.

3. Next, execute the following command to make the counter consistent and resync them with Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI).

winmgmt.exe /RESYNCPERF

 

 Once these command executed successfully, you can try installing the updates again. You’ll no longer receive the error code 0x800f0922 now.

FIX 2 – Using DISM Restore Command

If FIX 1 doesn’t solve this issue for you, try running DISM restore command.

In the Command Prompt window, you can execute following command:

Dism /Online /Cleanup-Image /RestoreHealth

 

POCO F1: Coming Soon

After lot of hassle and sh!t tonne of  harassment by Flipkart finally POCO F1 is arriving and so is a lot of opinions and more then that coming for you guys. I'll shortly tweet about all of this so follow me on twitter @akshay_rajvir

I can't decide title for this one

Point - 1

I promised to review POCO F1 after using it to give you guys an honest and real review of phone but its not wise to buy anything in first sale and it is good wait. patients is the key to success. I tried to buy it second sale but Flipkart blocked my account claiming i am reseller and neither letting me login nor responding to my emails so i'm that is that but since 6GB + 128GB variant is already in open sale it wont be long till 6GB + 64GB is available too.

For those who are considering 8GB + 256GB variant i say don't buy POCO F1. Go for either Asus Zenfone 5Z or Oneplus 6 base variant of Rs 36k.

Point - 2

I have created a beast gaming PC Build on pcpartpicker.com
If you anyone understands specs sheets and want to check it out link is given below and for those who don't understand and need explanation of anything or have any questions just write in the comment section below.

Link :- https://in.pcpartpicker.com/b/ZhTBD3

Good News

Congratulate me guys!

My blogger was approved by Google Ad Sense. Here is snapshot of mail I received.
Thank you all for your support.

I hope you will help earn few bucks and grow our community. I look forward to our future.

UPDATE!

Updates!

1

Discount on 10. Or G is discontinued and now it costs 10k. Congrats to all those who claimed gifts earlier.

2

My laptop has stopped working since last week and I've to rely on my mobile since. So, sorry for no posts but will keep posting regularly.

That will be it guys.