Posts

Draft Income-tax Rules deal a tax blow on CTC Car leases

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– Chirag Agarwal, Assistant Manager | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Draft Income-tax Rules, 2026 (“Draft Rules”), intended to be applicable from 1st April, 2026, have increased the perquisite value for cars used for a mix of personal and official use, by Rs 3200 per month  and Rs 4600 per month (where the expenses for running and maintenance are borne by the employer) and by Rs 1400 per month and Rs 2100 per month (where the expenses for running and maintenance are borne by the employee), respectively for upto 1.6 litre engine cars and above 1.6 litre engine cars. This, in our reading, will be applicable even for existing car lease transactions, increasing employees’ tax burden by Rs 5,040 to Rs 16,560 per car per annum. In addition, going forward, the tax attraction of CTC car leases comes down.

The Income Tax Department has issued the Draft Rules pursuant to the already-enacted rewrite of income tax law in form of Income Tax Act, 2025, replacing the 1961 Act. Accordingly, the 1962 Rules are to be replaced by Draft Rules, to apply from 1st April, 2026. The Draft Rules are mostly the same as the extant rules; however, monetary value of perquisites, covered by Rule 15 [corresponding to Rule 3(2) of existing Rules] is proposed to be enhanced significantly. Thus, there is a significant change in the valuation of perquisites relating to motor cars. 

As per the Income-tax Act, the value of perquisites provided by an employer (such as the use of a motor car provided by the employer) is added to the employee’s taxable income under the head “Salaries”. The Draft Rules propose an increase in the perquisite value attributable to the use of a motor car.

The proposed increase in perquisite valuation would result in a higher taxable perquisite value in the hands of employees, thereby increasing their taxable income. The CTC-based car leasing model, which is a distinctive feature of the Indian tax framework and has been widely used for several decades, derives its attractiveness from the favourable rules governing the valuation of perquisites, which reduce the employee’s taxable income. Any upward revision in such perquisite valuation is therefore likely to reduce the tax benefits associated with this structure and may adversely impact the overall attractiveness of CTC-based car leasing arrangements.

CTC leasing of passenger cars alone is nearly Rs 9000 crores annual volume business in India, constituting roughly 1.5% of passenger vehicles sold in the country. If the Draft Rules are notified in their current form, the revised valuation norms will take effect from April 1, 2026 and will apply not only to new arrangements but also to all existing CTC car leasing arrangements. Based on a broad estimate, this change could result in an additional tax outflow of approximately ₹36 crores to ₹81 crores annually for employees under the existing CTC leasing arrangements. 

This article explains the proposed changes and what they could mean for CTC-leasing going forward.

Taxability benefit under the CTC leasing structure

The tax benefit under the CTC car leasing structure arises from the differential treatment between 

  1. the lease rentals forming part of the employee’s CTC, and
  2. the valuation of the perquisite in respect of the use of the motor car under the Income-tax Rules. 

While the employer pays the lease rentals to the lessor as part of the employee’s CTC, the employee is not taxed on the actual lease rental amount. Instead, the employee is taxed only on the prescribed perquisite value of the car as determined under Rule 3(2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. This prescribed value is typically lower than the actual lease rentals, resulting in a reduction in the employee’s taxable income.

To illustrate: Assume an employee’s agreed CTC is ₹1,00,000 per month. The employer arranges a car on lease and pays lease rentals of ₹25,000 per month to the lessor, which forms part of the employee’s CTC. Accordingly, the employee’s cash salary reduces to ₹75,000 per month. For tax purposes, however, the employee is not taxed on the full ₹25,000. Instead, only the notional perquisite value of the car (as prescribed under Rule 3(2)) is added to his taxable income. The difference between the actual lease rentals and the lower perquisite valuation results in a tax arbitrage, which forms the economic rationale for the popularity of the CTC car leasing model.

Proposed Changes and Impact

The Draft Rules prescribe a higher perquisite value for the use of a motor car owned by an employer to be included in the taxable income of employees where it is used partly in the performance of duties and partly for private or personal purposes of the employees or their household members. The proposed revisions are summarised in the table below:

Expenses on maintenance and running met byCubic capacity of engine does not exceed 1.6 litresCubic capacity of engine exceeds 1.6 litres
ExistingProposedExistingProposed
Case I
Employer		₹1,800 + ₹900*₹5,000 + ₹3,000*₹2,400 + ₹900*₹7,000 + ₹3,000*
Case II
Employee		₹600 + ₹900*₹2,000 + ₹3,000*₹900 + ₹900*₹3,000 + ₹3,000*

*In case chauffeur is provided to run the motor car by the employer.

The proposed increase in the perquisite valuation of motor cars under the Draft Rules is likely to have a direct impact on the economics of the CTC car leasing model.

From the employee’s perspective, the proposed increase would result in a higher taxable perquisite being added to taxable income. The tax arbitrage that makes CTC car leasing attractive, i.e., the gap between the actual lease rentals and the lower notional perquisite value, is expected to narrow. As a result, the net tax savings available to employees under this model will be reduced. Below we have presented the likely impact with the help of two examples:

Example 1: 

  • Lease rental: ₹25,000 per month
  • Engine capacity: 1.7 litres
  • Mixed use
  • Expenses on maintenance and running are met/ reimbursed by the employer
  • Tenure: 1 year
ParticularsExisting RulesDraft RulesImpact (Increase)
Annual CTC₹12,00,000₹12,00,000–
Lease Rental (part of CTC)₹3,00,000₹3,00,000–
Cash Salary Paid₹9,00,000₹9,00,000–
Perquisite Value Taxable₹28,800₹84,000₹55,200
Total Taxable Income ₹9,28,800₹9,84,000₹55,200
Tax @ 30% slab (excluding cess)₹2,78,640₹2,95,200₹16,560

Example 2: 

  • Lease rental: ₹25,000 per month
  • Engine capacity: 1.5 litres
  • Mixed use
  • Expenses on maintenance and running are met/ reimbursed by the employee
  • Tenure: 1 year
ParticularsExisting RulesDraft RulesImpact (Increase)
Annual CTC₹12,00,000₹12,00,000–
Lease Rental (part of CTC)₹3,00,000₹3,00,000–
Cash Salary Paid₹9,00,000₹9,00,000–
Perquisite Value Taxable₹7,200₹24,000₹16,800
Total Taxable Income ₹9,07,200₹9,24,000₹16,800
Tax @ 30% slab (excluding cess)₹2,72,160₹2,77,200₹5,040

It shall be noted that employers would not incur any additional tax cost on account of the proposed changes, as the CTC paid to employees, including the lease rentals, would continue to be allowable as a deductible business expense. 

Conclusion

The Draft Rules materially raise the perquisite valuation of employer-provided cars, pushing up the tax outflow for employees opting for CTC-based car leasing. Since the revised valuation (if notified) will apply even to existing leases from 1 April 2026, the tax efficiency of the CTC car lease model would stand materially reduced, impacting both the attractiveness and economics of such arrangements going forward.
 

Our Other Resources:

From Capital Assets to Stock-in-Trade: Taxing “Notional” Gains in Amalgamations

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Decoding Supreme Court ruling in Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II, New Delhi

– Sourish Kundu | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

One of the most common modes of corporate restructuring is merger, and one of the most crucial aspects in assessing the commercial viability of a proposed merger is its tax implications. Typically, in a merger, the shareholders of the transferor company are issued shares of the transferee company in order to avail the exemption under section 70(1)(f) of the IT Act, 2025 [corresponding to section 47(vii) of the IT Act, 1961]. The said provision grants exemption in case of scheme of amalgamation in respect of the transfer of a capital asset, being shares held by a shareholder in the transferor company, where (i) the transfer is made in consideration of the allotment of shares in the transferee company (other than where the shareholder itself is the transferee company) and (ii) the amalgamated company is an Indian company.

However, a recent Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Jindal Equipment Leasing Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi-II, New Delhi [2026 INSC 46] has opened a new avenue for debate w.r.t the taxation on receipt of shares of the transferee company in a scheme of amalgamation. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the exemption as provided under section 47(vii) of the IT Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 70(1)(f) of the IT Act, 2025] shall not be available to shareholders of the transferor company who are not perceived as “investors”, that is to say long term investors as opposed to traders, in the transferor company. And accordingly, any notional gain in a share swap deal pursuant to an amalgamation shall be taxed u/2 28 of the IT Act, 1961 [corresponding to section 26 of the IT Act, 2025].

In this article, we decode the nuances of the ruling, the impact it is expected to have in the sphere of merger deals and other related concerns.

Difference between capital and business assets

So far, the common understanding of consideration in case of amalgamations was that an amalgamation is merely a statutory replacement of one scrip for another, with no real “transfer” or “income” until the new shares are actually sold for cash, or in other words, mere substitution of shares in the books of the involved entities. However, the Apex Court in the instant judgement has now effectively set a different precedent for those holding shares as stock-in-trade, i.e. current investments.

The Court clarified that while Section 47(vii) provides a safe harbor for investors (treating mergers as tax-neutral corporate restructuring), this exemption does not extend to “business assets”, a.k.a. stock in trade. For a trader and investment houses, shares held in stock-in-trade represent “circulating capital”, and the objective of holding them is not capital appreciation, but conversion into money in the ordinary course of business. Therefore, replacing shares of an amalgamating company with those of an amalgamated company of a higher, ascertainable value constitutes a “commercial realisation in kind”.

The 3 pillar test for taxability

The SC applying the doctrine of real income emphasised in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Excel Industries Ltd. and Anr. [(2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC)], established a three-pillar test, which is to be applied on a case to case basis to determine if allotment of shares pursuant to a merger triggers taxation of business income u/s 28 of the IT Act, 1961: 

  1. Cessation of the Old Asset: The original shares must be extinguished in the books of the assessee.
  2. Definite Valuation: The new shares must have an ascertainable market value.
  3. Present Realisability: The shareholder must be in a position to immediately dispose of the shares and realise money.

This test was further elaborated by two situations viz. allotted shares being subject to a statutory lock-in, which hinders the disposability of the asset, and allotted shares being unlisted, which cannot be said to be realisable, since no open market exists to ascribe a fair disposal value.

Additionally, the SC also held that the trigger is the date of allotment of the shares of the amalgamated entity, and neither the “appointed date” nor the “date of court sanction” or what is called as “effective date” in the general parlance, as no tradable asset exists in the shareholder’s hands until the scrips are actually issued.

Critical Concerns

While the ruling provides reasonable clarity on the treatment of shares received as a result of amalgamation, when the same is held in inventory, it leaves several operational questions unanswered, leaving a gap to determine the commercial feasibility of these deals.

  1. Treatment of profits and losses alike

If the Revenue can tax “notional” gains arising from a higher market value at allotment, correspondingly assessees should be allowed to book notional losses, if any on such deals as well. In cases where a merger swap ratio or a market dip results in the new shares being worth less than the cost of the original holding, the taxpayer should, by the same logic, be entitled to claim a business loss u/s 28 of the IT Act, 1961, or in other words, if the substitution is a “realisation” for profit, it must be a “realisation” for loss as well.

  1. Increase in cost of acquisition

A major concern is the potential for double taxation. If the assessee is taxed on notional gain, being the difference between the cost of acquisition of the original shares and the FMV of the shares of the transferee company on the date of allotment, such FMV should logically become the new cost of acquisition. If an assessee is taxed on the difference between the book value and the FMV at the time of allotment, but the increased cost of acquisition is not allowed, the same appreciation gets taxed twice. It is first taxed as business income at the time of allotment and again at the time of the actual sale.  

  1. Determination of the nature of shares as “stock in trade” vs “capital asset”

This issue remains prone to litigation, that is, who determines the nature of the investment, whether it is current or non-current? Will it be determined basis the books of account of the investor? 

A CBDT circular lays down certain principles along with some case laws to distinguish between shares held as stock-in-trade and shares held as investments, and decide the treatment of shares held by the investing company. Further, factors such as intention of the party purchasing the shares, [discussed by Lord Reid in J. Harrison (Watford) Ltd. v. Griffiths (H.M. Inspector of Taxes); (1962) 40 TC 281 (HL)], and method of recording the investments [highlighted in CIT v. Associated Industrial Development Co (P) Ltd (AIR1972SC445)], are considered as the deciding factors for making a demarcation between treating an asset as capital asset or stock-in-trade.

As highlighted in the instant case, while the initial classification is made by the companies in the financial statements, the AO is empowered to overlook the same, and determine whether the shares were held as stock-in-trade or as capital assets, as without that determination, the taxability or eligibility for exemption u/s 47 could not be ascertained.

It should be noted that the line between a long-term strategic investment and a trading asset is often thin, and the Jindal ruling places the burden on the Revenue to prove the stock status and the “present realisability” of the shares.

Conclusion

Proving by contradiction, the Apex Court has added that: “If amalgamations involving trading stock were insulated from tax by judicial interpretation, it would open a ready avenue for tax evasion. Enterprises could create shell entities, warehouse trading stock or unrealised profits therein, and then amalgamate so as to convert them into new shares without ever subjecting the commercial gain to tax. Equally, losses could be engineered and shifted across entities to depress taxable income. Unlike genuine investors who merely restructure their holdings, traders deal with stock-in-trade as part of their profit-making apparatus; to exempt them from charge at the point of substitution would undermine the integrity of the tax base”

Discussing the concept of “transfer”, “exchange” and “realisability”, the SC has affirmed that mergers do not entail a mere replacement of shares of one company with that of another, as for persons holding the same as stock-in-trade cannot be said to be a continue their investment, instead the new shares being capable of commercial realisation gives rise to taxable business income. The Jindal Equipment ruling seems to effectively end the assumption of automatic tax neutrality for all merger participants, subject to fulfillment of applicable conditions prescribed in the IT Act. As a result, if the tax officers believe that the shareholders hold the shares as stock in trade, and could cash out the same at the next possible instance, the assessee shall be under the obligation to pay tax even without encashing any gain in actuals. Further, the tax implications in such cases shall not be at the special rates prescribed for capital gains.

Read more:

Understanding “Undertaking” in the Context of Investment Demergers

Budget 2025: Mergers not to be used for evergreening of losses

Bye bye to Share Buybacks

/0 Comments/in , , , , , /by

– Finance Bill 2024 puts buybacks to a biting tax proposal w.e.f. 1st October, 2024

-Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Among the tax law changes proposed by Finance Bill, 2024, the one on share buybacks, explained as one intended to remove tax inequity, is perhaps the most unexplainable.  The proposed change, by introduction of a new sub-clause (f) to section 2 (22) [deemed dividend], and simultaneous amendments to sec. 46A and sec. 115QA, not only shifts the tax burden from companies to shareholders, but surprisingly, brings to tax the entire amount paid on buyback, irrespective of the excess realised by the shareholder. It  leaves the cost of shares to be claimed as capital loss and set off against potential capital gains, of course only if such gains arise  within the prescribed timelines for carry forward and set off.

Buyback of shares is the only way a company seeks to scale down its capital. The proposed amendment makes it impossible for companies to reduce their capital base by returning capital not needed, as the only other way is through reduction of share capital, which is subject to shareholders’, creditors’, and NCLT approval. It is surprising that this amendment by the very same Budget which proposes to introduce the novel concept of “variable capital companies”.

Read more →

The iSAFE option to start up funding: Legality and taxation

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Mahak Agarwal | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Navigating the world of fundraising for startups is no easy feat. This becomes all the more challenging for a pre-revenue start-up which cannot have a valuation. Amongst the several fundraising options available to a start-up, one of the budding and lesser-known sources happens to be iSAFE.

Origin

iSAFE, short for, India Simple Agreement for Future Equity, was first introduced in India by 100X.VC, an early-stage investment firm. This move was inspired by US’s ‘Simple Agreement for Future Equity (‘SAFE’)’, an alternative to convertible debt and the brainchild of an American start-up incubator. SAFE is a financing contract between a startup and an investor that grants the investor the right to acquire equity in the firm subject to specific activating events, such as a future equity fundraising.[1]

So far as the success of SAFE in India is concerned, being neither debt (since they do not accrue interest), nor equity (since they do not carry any dividend or shareholders’ rights) or any other instrument, it could not carve its place in India and was cornered as a mere contingent contract with low reliability and security. On the contrary, iSAFE happened to be the game changer in the Indian context, being a significantly modified version of SAFE.

Read more →

Shorn of tax benefit, MLDs now face tax deduction on payouts

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Dayita Kanodia | Executive

finserv@vinodkothari.com

Background

The Finance Bill, 2023[1], has quite nearly caused the demise of the so-called “Market-Linked Debentures” (MLDs)[2]. The changes made pursuant to the Finance Bill, 2023, took away what seemed to be a strong reason for popularity of MLDs, i.e., the tax arbitrage.

Prior to the change, listed MLDs had the advantage of being exempt from the withholding tax under section 193 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as well as being taxed at 10% as Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) tax, if held for at least 12 months.

Finance Bill, 2023 inserts a new section 50AA to the Income Tax Act, 1961, which makes MLDs to be taxed at slab rates as a short term capital asset in all cases at the time of  transfer or redemption on maturity, irrespective of the period of holding, therefore losing out on the earlier lower LTCG rate of 10%.

In addition, the earlier exemption from withholding tax on listed debentures has now been removed pursuant to an amendment in section 193, which means that interest paid on listed debentures would now be subject to withholding tax with effect from April 01, 2023[3].

Read more →

Taxation in Securitisation: A judicial overview

/0 Comments/in , , /by

-Anirudh Grover, Executive | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

Securitization transactions in India post the pandemic has seen significant improvement with volumes growing by 70% to Rs. 73000 crores in FY 2023 compared to Rs. 43000 crores in FY 2022.[1] This growth was also highlighted in one of our recent write up wherein it can be seen from the data laid down that despite the global slowdown in the world economy on account of the pandemic, the volume of securitization transactions in India gained a lot of popularity. Given the impetus of this fundraising mode, it is important to have a vibrant securitization market. This can be only achieved if the governing framework with respect to taxation does not impose an additional taxation burden on the parties. Through this article, the writer will be reviewing the stance of various courts by highlighting the principles with respect to the taxation of the parties involved in a securitization framework i.e. Originator, Special Purpose Vehicle(‘SPV’), and the Investors. For a better understanding of the framework of securitization, the readers can also refer to our Article on Securitization: A Primer.

Read more →

Secondment contract as ‘services’: Supreme Court held under Indian taxation regime

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– Neha Sinha, Assitant Legal Advisor | neha.sinha@vinodkothari.com 

Background

Secondment of employees have become increasingly popular amongst corporate entities which enter into secondment arrangements to leverage the expert knowledge and specific skill sets. The seconded employees work on a deputation basis in the seconded companies they are seconded to which require their technical expertise on certain matters. Since the seconded employee works for the seconded company during the secondment period, a pertinent question arises on whether the seconded employee becomes an employee of the seconded company. If yes, then what are the likely implications in the context of service tax. 

Read more →

Financial Leases getting a new lease of life?

/0 Comments/in , , /by

– Kanakprabha Jethani, Senior Manager | kanak@vinodkothari.com

Background

Leasing industry in India started and grew, as in several other countries, with financial leasing. However, over last several years, it seemed as if financial leases had lost their relevance, for reasons discussed below. While activity in the leasing space was not very brisk, but whatever activity was there was seen mostly in operating leases. Operating leases were sold on the strength of either off-balance sheet treatment, or with lower monthly rentals, or residual value management etc. In case of financial leases, on the other hand, there seemed very little motivation.

Some recent developments seem to be rekindling the interest in financial leases, and if the tax ruling by the ITAT Chennai either goes unchallenged or is affirmed on further appeal, there may be just a new lease of life for financial leases. Coupled with other benefits such as bankruptcy remoteness etc., there may be strong reasons for looking at financial leases, both by lessors and lessees.

In financial year 2021-22, the volume of financial leasing reached to around 7% of the total leasing volumes in the country, compared to 20% in the financial year 16-17[1]. Considering the legal and regulatory construct in India, the reducing volumes of financial leasing make complete sense. However, the recent rulings on taxation of leases may reverse the long known reasons for not doing financial leases.

In this article, the author discusses the reasons why financial leases do not appeal to lessors and lessees and how the recent developments on the taxation aspects of leasing may seem to be bringing financial leases back to life.

Read more →

Tax dues subservient to dues of secured creditors under SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Neha Sinha, Executive, Vinod Kothari & Company

corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act are specific laws for recovery of debts.  Both these laws provide that  the secured creditors can claim priority for the realisation of dues. On the other hand, State and Central tax authorities can also enforce the payment of tax dues under tax statutes, which often create a statutory first charge in favour of the authorities. This may give rise to situations wherein the secured creditors are competing with the tax authorities in respect of payment of dues. Such competing claims have to be resolved in case of insolvency/deficiency.

A similar situation arose in the case of Jalgaon Janta Sahakari v. Joint Commissioner of Sales.[1] The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court decided on the issue of the conflict between  SARFAESI Act and RDDB Act, and State tax statutes, in respect of priority of claims. The primary that arose in this case was whether State tax authorities can claim priority, by virtue of first charge created under State tax statutes, over a secured creditor for liquidation of their respective dues.

Chapter IV-A of the SARFAESI deals with registration of charges by secured creditors and. Pursuant to section 26D therein,  a secured creditor who has not registered the charge loses his right to enforce the security under SARFAESI. Section 26E, which has a non-obstante clause, accords priority to the secured creditor who has registered the charge in the CERSAI, over “all other debts and all revenue, taxes, cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or State Government or local authority.” Similarly, section 31B of the RDDB Act gives states that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law….rights of secured creditors shall have priority and shall be paid in priority over all other debts and Government dues including revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due to the Central Government, State Government or local authority.” Pertinently, the aforesaid provisions in both Acts have a non-obstante clause, having the effect of overriding any other law inconsistent with it.

In the instant case, by virtue of relevant State tax statutes, a first charge was created in favour of State tax authorities. This brings forth the conflict as to who shall have priority in terms of payment-  that State tax authorities with first charge or the secured creditors with the registration of charge in CERSAI?

Read more →