In 2009, a property was purchased for 36 lakhs, and if sold now, its maximum market value would be 60 lakhs. Without indexation, its estimated value is around 88 lakhs, indicating a loss of 28 lakhs that can be carried forward. However, there would be a 12.5% tax on the 24 lakhs for a property that is losing value. This example illustrates the significant role indexation benefits played in making real estate investments more attractive, especially with historically lower returns.
it’s a tough choice , real estate has been a solid asset in the long run. Indexation helps w/ taxes but remember, property often appreciates over time, far less volatile than stocks. if ur goal is long-term security, keeping patience and staying in real estate can still be beneficial.
The elimination of indexation benefits certainly affects the financial attractiveness of real estate investments, especially regarding tax efficiency. However, real estate can still be a worthwhile venture due to its potential for rental income and capital appreciation over the long term. Even though taxes might take a more significant chunk without indexation, owning physical assets can offer security during economic uncertainties. Evaluating market trends and potential investment locations might mitigate some of the perceived drawbacks of losing indexation benefits.
Wow, this got me thinking! 
With the dynamic nature of real estate markets, do you think there’s potential in diversifying into different regions or types of properties to offset the impact of losing indexation? Or could there be other investment strategies we haven’t considered that can complement real estate?