Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
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

Foreign Arbitration Clause Can’t Block Arbitration Under Separate Agreements Providing For Mumbai Arbitration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has allowed arbitration in Mumbai in a dispute between an Indian...

Gifts And Incentives To Doctors: Stronger Checks Needed On Unethical Pharma Marketing: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to constitute a committee within two weeks...

Criminal Breach Of Trust Can’t Be Proved Without Evidence Of Entrustment And Dishonest Intent: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has restored the acquittal of a former Telephone Department cashier accused...

Investors Not Named in Trust Deed: Supreme Court Rejects CBDT Appeal Against Tax Relief 

The Supreme Court has dismissed the Central Board of Direct Taxes’ (CBDT) challenge to...

More like this

Foreign Arbitration Clause Can’t Block Arbitration Under Separate Agreements Providing For Mumbai Arbitration: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has allowed arbitration in Mumbai in a dispute between an Indian...

Gifts And Incentives To Doctors: Stronger Checks Needed On Unethical Pharma Marketing: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to constitute a committee within two weeks...

Criminal Breach Of Trust Can’t Be Proved Without Evidence Of Entrustment And Dishonest Intent: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has restored the acquittal of a former Telephone Department cashier accused...