HomeColumnsFinance Bill 2026 Clarifies 12% Surcharge on Promoters’ Buyback Gains

Finance Bill 2026 Clarifies 12% Surcharge on Promoters’ Buyback Gains

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The government has issued a clarification regarding a key amendment introduced through the Finance Bill, 2026, specifying the applicability of a 12% surcharge on promoters earning capital gains from share buybacks.

According to the clarification, the amendment provides for a surcharge on the additional income tax payable by promoters on capital gains arising from buybacks undertaken in accordance with Section 68 of the Companies Act, 2013. The surcharge has been fixed at a rate of 12%.

The government further explained that the relevant provision under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 deals specifically with the tax rates applicable to such additional income tax on promoters. As such, the 12% surcharge will be levied only on the additional income tax component payable by promoters on capital gains arising from buybacks, as outlined under Section 69(2)(b).

Importantly, the clarification draws a distinction between promoters and non-promoters. In the case of non-promoters, the surcharge will not be governed by this specific amendment. Instead, the existing surcharge provisions under normal tax rules will continue to apply, wherever applicable, on capital gains from buybacks.

The clarification aims to remove ambiguity around the scope and applicability of the surcharge provision, ensuring that the levy is confined strictly to the additional tax liability of promoters and does not extend beyond its intended framework.

Read More: CENVAT Credit Allowed on GTA Services for FOR Destination Sales, Clarifies ‘Place of Removal’ as Buyer’s Premises: CESTAT

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Procedural Delay Should Not Defeat Scheme Benefits: CESTAT Directs Manual Processing of SVLDRS Discharge Certificate

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

More like this

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

The Kolkata Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

The Chennai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...