LOK SABHA SECRETARIAT

PARLIAMENT LIBRARY AND REFERENCE, RESEARCH, DOCUMENTATION

AND INFORMATION SERVICE (LARRDIS)

MEMBERS’ REFERENCE SERVICE

REFERENCE NOTE .
No. 3/RN/Ref./February/2016

For the use of Members of Parliament Not for Publication

REFORMING THE DIRECT TAX SYSTEM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reference material is for personal use of the Members in the discharge of their Parliamentary duties, and is not
for publication. This Service is not to be quoted as the source of the information as it is based on the sources
indicated at the end/in the text. This Service does not accept any responsibility for the accuracy or veracity of the
information or views contained in the note/collection.
 REFORMING THE DIRECT TAX SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

Taxes refer to the money collected by the government through payments as

imposed by law. Through the march of history, reasons for collection of taxes have
ranged from expenditure on war, maintenance of law and order, protection of property,
providing economic infrastructure, carrying out public works and for running the
government itself.

Governments of welfare States today use taxes to fund public welfare like
education, health and related social sector services besides offering public utilities.
A high level of taxation is essential in a welfare State to fulfill its ever-growing social
obligations.

Apart from meeting social expenditure, taxation has another important objective
of reducing the inequalities of income and wealth.

TYPES OF TAXES
Though the nature of taxes and their collection varies across countries,
there are predominantly two types – direct taxes and indirect taxes.1

Direct taxes are so named since they are charged upon and collected directly
from the person or organisation that ultimately pays the tax (in a legal sense). Taxes on
personal and corporate incomes, personal wealth and professions are direct taxes. In
India the main direct taxes at the central level are the personal and corporate income
tax. Both are till date levied through the same piece of legislation, the Income Tax Act of
1961.

Income taxes are levied on various head of income, namely, incomes from
business and professions, salaries, house property, capital gains and other sources
(like interest and dividends). Other direct taxes include the wealth tax and the securities

1
Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA), A Primer on Taxes, p. 5-6
 2

transactions tax. Some other forms of direct taxation that existed in India from time to
time but were removed as part of various reforms include the estate duty, gift tax,
expenditure tax and fringe benefits tax. The estate duty was levied on the estate of a
deceased person. The fringe benefits tax was charged on employers on the value of in-
kind non-cash benefits or perquisites received by employees from their employers.
Such perquisites are now largely taxed directly in the hands of employees and added to
their personal income tax. Some states charge a tax on professions. Most local
governments also charge property owners a tax on land and buildings.

Indirect taxes are charged and collected from persons other than those who
finally end up paying the tax (again in a legal sense). For instance, a tax on sale of
goods is collected by the seller from the buyer. The legal responsibility of paying the tax
to government lies with the seller, but the tax is paid by the buyer. The current central
level indirect taxes are the central excise (a tax on manufactured goods), the service
tax, the customs duty (a tax on imports) and the central sales tax on inter-state sale of
goods. The main state level indirect tax is the post-manufacturing (that is wholesale and
retail levels sales tax (now largely a value added tax with intra-state tax credit)2.

TAX GDP RATIO

Tax-GDP ratio is an indicator of fiscal performance. The higher the ratio, the
better is the tax collection, higher the tax revenue 3. If we compare the Tax-GDP ratio
of India with other countries, India ranks very low (pl.see Table 1).

WHY TAX REFORM

Patterns of taxation (both in level and in composition) differ from country to
country because of economic, cultural, and historical factors. A poorly designed or
improperly functioning tax system can lead to the following problems, which tax reform
attempts to address.

2
RBI, Fiscal Policy in India: Trends and Trajectory by Supriya De, January 2012, pp. 7-8
3
Op.cit. CBGA Tax Primer,p28
 3

Insufficient Revenues: Most developing countries are plagued by chronic fiscal deficits
and by inadequate social and economic infrastructure. Increasing tax revenue provides
an obvious avenue to address these problems. Since the primary function of a tax
system is to generate revenue, the first goal of tax reform must be to ensure that this
function is discharged adequately.

Distortions that reduce economic welfare and growth: Taxation frequently creates
distortions in the economy that reduce the real income of society by more than the
amount of revenue raised by government. The reduction in real income is often referred
to as the economic efficiency costs of taxation. Poorly designed and implemented tax
systems can also encourage companies and individuals to waste effort on avoiding and
evading taxes. A second goal of tax reform, therefore, must be to reduce the efficiency
costs of taxation.

Inequities: The poor often bear significant tax burdens. At the same time, many of the
better-off pay little in taxes because a large part of nonwage income, self-employment
income, or in-kind income is excluded by design or by weak administration. As a result,
both horizontal equity (treating taxpayers with the same amount of income equally,
irrespective of the source of income) and vertical equity (distributing the tax burden
among the nonpoor in line with their ability to pay) suffer. Lifting the tax burden off the
poorest households and ensuring that actual tax structures become more equitable both
horizontally and vertically is a third goal of tax reform.

Administrative problems: In most developing countries the administration of taxes is

weak, and the problems of evasion and corruption are serious. The weakness in tax
administration stems from several interacting factors, inducing unduly complex tax laws
and procedures, poor information systems, corruption, and political interference in tax
administration. Strengthening tax administration, which will often require simplifying the
determination of the tax base, is a fourth objective of tax reform4.

One of the most important reasons for recent tax reforms in many developing
countries and transitional economies has been to evolve a tax system to meet the

4
Lesson of Tax Reforms by World Bank, pp. 2-4
 4

requirements of international competition. The tax system has to adjust to the

requirement of the market economy to ensure international competitiveness. (Rao,1992)

Direct Tax Reforms in India

In the post-independence era in India , taxation policy was geared towards
achieving the economic objectives of promoting employment through grant of tax
incentives to new investment; reducing inequality through progressive taxes on income
and wealth; reducing pressure on balance of payments through increase of import
duties; and stabilising prices through tax rebate in excise duties on consumption goods.
Given the narrow tax base, the tax policy relied more on indirect taxes.

The first comprehensive attempt at reforming the tax system was by the Taxation
Enquiry Commission (TEC)-1953-54 (Chairman: John Matthai). The Commission
reviewed the structure of taxes on income and carried out an in-depth study of the
central taxes and their administration, recommended widening and deepening the tax
structure both at the Centre and in the State level, specifically for the purpose of
financing development outlay and reducing large inequalities of income, modified where
necessary to provide tax incentives so as to stimulate capital formation. The
Commission also called for a periodic appraisal of the extent to which tax incentives
given for production and investment result in the fulfillment of the objectives for which
they were instituted.

A review undertaken in 1956 by Prof. Nicholas Kaldor at the behest of the

Government found the prevailing taxation system in India at the time „inefficient and
inequitable‟, primarily because the income category was not found to be an adequate
measure of taxable capacity. Thus, Kaldor‟s review recommended the „broadening of
the tax base through the introduction of an annual tax on wealth; the taxation of capital
gains; a general gift-tax; and a personal expenditure tax.‟ These recommendations were
implemented by the Government, although suggestions for reducing the scope of tax
evasion through a comprehensive reporting system for transactions of a capital nature
and lowering of the maximum rate of income tax to 45 per cent were not accepted.5

5
RBI, Empirical Fiscal Research in India by RK Patnaik and others, pp. 4-5
 5

At the central level, the changes in the income tax structure until the mid- 1970s
were largely ad hoc, dictated by the exigencies of bringing about a socialistic pattern of
society. In 1973–74, the personal income tax had eleven tax brackets with rates
monotonically rising from 10 percent to 85 percent. When a surcharge of 15 percent
was taken into account, the highest marginal rate for persons with income above Rs.
0.2 million (2 Lacs) was 97.5 percent.

The policy was similar in the case of corporate taxation. The classical system of
taxation involved taxing the profits in the hands of the company and dividends in the
hands of the shareholders. A distinction was made between widely held companies and
different types of closely held companies, and the tax rate varied from the base rate of
45 percent to 65 percent in the case of some widely held companies. Although nominal
rates were high, the effective rates were substantial lower due to generous depreciation
and investment allowances. In fact some companies benefited from the preferences so
much that they did not pay any corporate tax year after year

The Direct Taxes Enquiry Committee chaired by Shri Justice K.N. Wanchoo in its
report (1971) attributed the large-scale tax evasion to confiscatory tax rates and
recommended reducing marginal rates to 70 percent. This change was implemented in
1974–75, when the tax rate was brought down to 77 percent including a 10 percent
surcharge. Simultaneously, however, the wealth tax rates were increased. In 1976–77,
the marginal rate was further reduced to 66 percent, and the wealth tax rate was
reduced from 5 percent to 2.5 percent. In 1979–80, the income tax surcharge was
increased, and the wealth tax rate returned to a maximum of 5 percent. A major
simplification and rationalization initiative, however, came in 1985–86, when the number
of tax brackets was reduced from eight to four, the highest marginal tax rate was
brought down to 50 percent, and wealth tax rates came down to 2.5 percent.

The last wave of reforms in personal income taxation was initiated on the basis of
the recommendations of the Tax Reforms Committee (TRC), 1991 chaired by Shri Raja
J. Chelliah6. TRC recommended a number of measures to broaden the tax base by
minimising exemptions and concessions, drastically simplifying laws and procedures
6
Trends and Issues in Tax Policy and Reforms in India by M Govind Rao and R Kavita Rao, India Policy Forum
2006, pp. 68-69
 6

building a proper information system and computerizing tax returns, and thoroughly
modernizing administrative and enforcement machinery7. Under the reforms, there
were only three tax brackets, of 20, 30, and 40 percent, starting in 1992–93. Financial
assets were excluded from the wealth tax, and the maximum marginal rate was reduced
to 1 percent. Further reductions came in 1997–98, when the three rates were brought
down further to 10, 20, and 30 percent. Personal income tax rates have remained stable
since 1997–98, at 10, 20, and 30 percent8. However, later surcharge and cesses were
levied to earmark revenues for elementary and higher education. At present, the tax is
levied at 10 per cent for incomes above Rs. 2.5 lac up to Rs. 5 lac, 20 per cent on
incomes between 5 lac to Rs. 10 lac and 30 per cent above that. In addition, there is an
education cess of 3 per cent. On incomes above Rs. 1 crore, there is also a surcharge
of 12 per cent which implies that the marginal tax rate for those earning above Rs. 1
crore works out to 36.66 per cent.9

In 1985-86, the basic corporate tax rate was reduced to 50 percent for widely
held companies and rates applicable to different categories of closely held companies
were unified at 55 percent. Based on the recommendations of the TRC, the distinction
between closely held and widely held companies was done away with and the tax rates
were reduced to an uniform 40 percent in 1993–94. In 1997–98, the corporate rate was
further reduced, to 35 percent, and the 10 percent tax on dividends was shifted from
individuals to companies. The major corporate tax preferences are investment and
depreciation allowances. Tax incentives were also provided for businesses locating in
underdeveloped areas. As a result, some companies planned their activities to take full
advantage of the generous concessions and fully avoid the tax. This form of tax
avoidance by “zero-tax” companies was minimized by the introduction of a minimum
alternative tax (MAT) in 1996–97. Even as companies can take advantage of the tax
preferences, they are required to pay a tax on 30 percent of their book profits. In
subsequent years, a provision was incorporated allowing those companies paying a
MAT to take a partial credit against income tax liabilities in following years. The
dividends tax rate was increased to 20 percent in 2000–01, then reduced again to 10
7
Tax Reforms in India : Achievements and Challenges by M. Govinda Rao, Asia Pacific Development Journal, Vol. 7.
No. 2, 2000, p. 66
8
Op.cit., Trends and Issues in Tax Policy, p. 69
9
The Challenges of Reforming India's Tax System by M Govind Rao, NCAER- India's Policy Forum 2015, p. 10
 7

percent in 2001–02 and levied on shareholders rather than the company. The policy
was reversed once again in 2003–04, with the dividend tax imposed on the company. .,
To improve tax compliance and create an audit trail, a securities transactions tax was
introduced in April 2004 and tax of 0.1 percent on all cash withdrawals above Rs.
25,000 from current accounts of commercial banks was introduced in April 2005.. In
2005-06, the Corporate Tax rate was further reduced to 30 per cent10. The rate
remained unchanged in the subsequent years.

In the 2015-16 budget, the finance Minister has made an announcement

regarding reduction in the rate of corporate tax from 30 per cent to 25 per cent over the
next four years based on rationalization and removal of various kinds of tax exemptions
and incentives for corporate tax payers.11

The most Important reform in recent year in tax administrative measures taken to
expand the tax base includes that every individual living in a large city and covered
under any one of the six conditions (ownership of house, ownership of a car,
membership in a club, ownership of credit cards, foreign travel, and a subscriber of a
telephone connection) is necessarily required to file a tax return. Another initiative is the
expansion in the scope of deducting the tax at source beyond salary incomes to most of
the transactions including interest and dividend receipts and payments to contractors12.

TOWARDS FURTHER REFORMS

Tax Administrative Reform Committee 2014 chaired by Parthasarthi Shome has
comprehensively dealt with the reform of tax administration and emphasized that goal of
tax administration is not to maximize revenue but to maximize voluntary compliance
and minimize compliance gaps.

Efforts have also been made to simplify the Income Tax Act. A ten member
Committee was constituted on 22 October 2015 under the Chairmanship Justice R.V.
Easwar (Retired) to study and identify the provisions of phrases in the Act that are

10
Trends and Issues Op.cit., pp69-71
11
Lok Sabha (16th) Committee on Finance 2015-16, Twenty Third Report, p15.
12
Op.cit., The Challenges of Reforming India's Tax System, p.10
 8

leading to litigations due to different interpretations, impacting the ease of doing

business, and those that can be simplified.

IMPACT OF REFORMS ON REVENUE COLLECTION

The share of direct tax in gross tax revenues has gone up from 19.1 per cent to
55.9 per cent in the period 1990-911 to 2013-14. In the corresponding period, the share
of indirect taxes in gross tax revenue went down from 78.9 per cent to 43.8 per cent
indicating structural shift in the composition of revenues. The share of direct tax
revenue as percentage of GDP increased from 1.9 per cent to 5.7 per cent in the
corresponding period. Thus, direct tax collection increased both in absolute and in
relative terms (See Table 2 and 3).

In spite of many reforms, Indian taxation structure is far from being an ideal tax
structure and require some major reforms in the future to address these problems.

WHAT AILS THE INDIAN TAX SYSTEM

In India, the tax base is narrow and the rates very high

The narrow tax base implies that majority of India's population is off the country's
tax net. As per the IMF Country Report, despite a population of 1.2 billion, there are
only about 40 million direct taxpayers, both corporate and individual.. The number of tax
payers in the country has not increased proportionate to the increase in direct tax
collections over the years. In the last ten years, direct tax collections has increased by
more than 700 per cent (from Rs. 69,198 crore to Rs. 5,58,965 crore), but the number of
tax payers has grown by only about 35 per cent. This obviously indicates an extremely
narrow tax base, which clearly calls for systematic data capture and monitoring
thereof13.

A major problem that has haunted the tax system and reduce the tax base is the
generous tax preferences. The tax preferences include the incentives and concessions
for savings, housing, retirement benefits, investment in and return from certain types of

13 rd
India, Ministry of Finance, Tax Administrative Reforms Commission (TARC), 2014,3 Report, p. 775.
 9

financial assets, investments in retirement schemes and income of charitable trusts,

etc.. The major corporate tax preferences are investment and depreciation allowances.
These preferences have not only distorted the after tax rates of return on various types
14
of investment in unintended ways but has also significantly erorded the tax base .

Details of the exemptions that are being availed of by companies and individuals
are provided in the budget document under the revenue foregone statement A look at
the budget document suggests that the gross revenue foregone for the Corporate
Sector is projected to Rs. 62,398 crore in 2014-15. As a percentage of total corporate
tax collections for the year 2014-15, this amount to 15 per cent15 .

Compounding the ills of the bad design of these taxes, are the weaknesses of tax
administration. The current practice of blind pursuit of revenue targets has an adverse
impact on tax officer equilibrium and leads to harassment of taxpayers The tax arrears
worth rupees 5.80,326 crores in 2012-13 increased to Rs. 6,74,916 crore in 2013-14.
This huge pendency of tax arrears shows failure of tax policy and administration.16

THE WAY FORWARD

Even though widening the tax base has been one of the key action plan areas for
the last several years, achievement has fallen short of targets. There, therefore, is an
urgent need to enlarge the tax base as well as taxpayer base (which is not
commensurate with the growth in income and wealth seen over the years) through both
policy as well as enforcement action by bringing into the tax net high net worth
assesses and potential tax payers.

Widening the tax base raises equity, because if all persons liable to pay tax are
brought on tax records, the burden on existing taxpayers can be brought down. The
overall level of compliance improves when a large number of persons who are legally
required to file returns, do so. It also encourages others to comply with their legal
obligation to pay their taxes dutifully.

14
Op.cit., Trends and Issues in Tax Policy, p. 69
15 st
Corporate Taxes and Exemptions by Kavita Rao, EPW Volume 50, 21 March, 2015, p. 28
16
Tax System Reforms to put Economy on Growth Path by Satya Poddar in Business Today, January 1, 2015 and
Committee on Finance Op.cit.,P.11
 10

The focus has to be on bringing in new taxpayers, rather than putting a heavier
burden on payers who are already in the tax net by targeting sectors that are currently
untaxed, especially the informal/unorganised sectors. There also has to be a
comprehensive review of exemptions, incentives, etc., with a view to rationalising them,
which may require legislative changes. Attention has also to be given to minimisation of
tax avoidance/evasion by developing a better understanding of the underground
economy, both in terms of its size and the economic and behavioural factors that
motivate players in the economy, identifying vulnerable areas of tax evasion, and
coordination and collaboration with sister departments for exchange of information on a
real time basis and its effective utilisation. Without impinging upon good taxpayers, tax
avoidance needs to be examined very carefully in those identified areas and non-filers
and stop-filers need to be targeted to widen the tax base. The tax administration needs
to be oriented more towards customers for improving voluntary compliance. This could
go a long way in expanding the taxpayer base.

INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
Tax administrations in various countries have undertaken reviews of exemptions/
incentives/deductions being given by them. After the review, some tax administrations,
for example Korea, have withdrawn the deduction for future R&D. Singapore, on the
other hand has decided to continue with the 50 per cent tax deduction on spending
incurred on R&D activities conducted in Singapore for another 10 years. In Mauritius,
allowances/deductions not linked with production of income like donations, tax holidays,
and tax credits have been removed. In addition, complex systems of exemptions have
been simplified.. By reforming its tax incentive regime, Mauritius has reportedly
precluded high income earners from abusing various tax deductions, reliefs and
donations to reduce their tax liability.

Taxpayer services provided by tax administrations are being continuously

improved through the use of technology. An integrated tax office/one-stop-shop aiming
to reduce the cost and burden of tax compliance is the new concept, and these are
being set up. The integration of files has made it easier for the tax administrations
match and cross-reference data.
 11

Measures have been adopted by various countries to enhance their enforcement

efforts including aggressive tax audit, co-operation with other tax authorities on the
exchange of information, and revamping tax disclosure requirements. A number of
OECD member countries provide rewards for information regarding taxpayer
noncompliance. For example, CRA‟s Offshore Tax Informant Programme (OTIP) allows
the CRA to make financial awards to individuals who provide information related to
major international tax compliance cases that leads to the collection of owed taxes. The
United States Internal Revenue Service has a whistle-blower office that rewards
individuals who come forward with information on major cases of tax evasion. Many tax
administrations are attempting to bring in a regime of taxing the rich, but are keeping an
extremely high threshold limit. These include the US, UK, Europe and Australia. Canada
has launched the related party initiative (RPI) in 2004 to identify and examine high net
worth individuals (HNWIs). The objectives of the RPI are to identify and respond to high
risk compliance issues involving HNWIs and related economic entities. The UK‟s HMRC
uses cluster analysis to create segments according to asset size, and size of income
from the assets, based on which it has started a pilot project to improve understanding
of the needs of different HNWI customers and their behaviour to respond to them
appropriately. With this objective, it has established a dedicated unit for servicing
HNWIs17.

SUMMING UP
The FM in his budget speech for 2014-15 has said, „there is an urgent need to
generate more resources to fuel the economy. For this, the tax to GDP ratio must be
improved.‟ Based on international practices, other economies have increased their tax
to GDP ratio by simplifying tax structures and improving tax administration and not by
increasing rates, realising that voluntary compliance holds the key. On the lines of such
trends in developed as well as developing countries, tax rates have been reduced in
India both in the case of personal income tax as well as tax on corporations. The
existing rates of the former are competitive and are on par with or lower than that of

17
Op.cit., TARC, p. 775-811
 12

other nations. If tax preferences, which lead to significant revenue loss and economic
distortions, are eliminated, then effective tax rates would rise appropriately.

Taxes are vital resources whose maximisation and mobilisation is of importance

to governments to finance, among others, the development needs of the poor and
under-privileged sections of society and important sectors of the economy. This is
possible through the expansion of the tax base and taxpayer base. While tax
administrations have adopted various ways to expand their tax base, the reform relating
to tax administration to professionalise the administration and make it taxpayer friendly
also needs to be pursued with vigour to improve the administrative efficiency and
compliance
 13

Table-1: Tax-GDP Ratio of G20 Countries

S.
No. Country 2012
1 Argentina
2 Australia 21.4
3 Brazil 15.4
4 Canada 11.7
5 China
6 Germany 11.9
7a Euro area 17.7
7b European Union 19.4
8 France 22.0
9 United Kingdom 26.9
10 Indonesia
11 India 10.3*
12 Italy 23.2
13 Japan 10.1
14 Korea, Rep.
15 Mexico
16 Russian Federation 15.1
17 Saudi Arabia
18 Turkey 20.4
19 United States 10.2
20 South Africa 26.5

Average 17.5

Source: Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3383 dated 2312.2014

 14

Table-2: Tax Revenue as Percentage of Gross Tax Revenue

Year Direct Personal Corporation Indirect Customs Excise Service

Taxes tax tax taxes Tax

1990-91 19.1 9.3 9.3 78.9 35.9 42.6

1991-92 22.6 10.0 11.7 75.5 33.0 41.7

1992-93 24.3 10.6 11.9 73.7 31.9 41.3

1993-94 26.8 12.0 13.3 71.6 29.3 41.8

1994-95 29.2 13.0 15.0 70.6 29.0 40.5

1995-96 30.2 14.0 14.8 69.6 32.1 36.1

1996-97 30.2 14.2 14.4 69.1 33.3 35.0

1997-98 34.7 12.3 14.4 64.5 28.9 34.5

1998-99 32.2 14.0 17.1 66.8 28.6 36.9

1999-2000 33.7 14.9 17.9 65.5 28.2 36.0 1.2

2000-01 36.2 16.8 18.9 62.9 25.2 36.3 1.4

2001-02 37.0 17.1 19.6 62.1 21.5 38.8 1.8

2002-03 38.4 17.0 21.3 60.7 20.7 38.1 1.9

2003-04 41.3 16.3 25.0 57.9 19.1 35.7 3.1

2004-05 43.3 16.2 27.1 56.1 18.9 32.5 4.7

2005-06 43.0 15.3 27.7 54.4 17.8 30.4 6.3

2006-07 46.4 15.9 30.5 51.0 18.2 24.8 7.9

2007-08 49.9 17.3 32.5 47.0 17.6 20.8 8.6

2008-09 52.8 17.5 35.3 44.5 16.5 17.9 10.1

2009-10 58.9 19.6 39.2 39.2 13.3 16.5 9.4

2010-11 55.3 17.5 37.7 43.4 17.1 17.4 9.0

2011-12 54.9 18.5 36.3 44.1 16.8 16.3 11.0

2012-13 53.4 19.0 34.4 45.7 16.0 17.0 12.8

2013-14 55.9 21.0 34.8 43.8 15.2 14.9 13.6

(Economic Survey of various years)

 15

Table-3: Tax Revenue as Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

Year Direct Personal Corporation Indirect Customs Excise Service Total of
Taxes tax tax taxes Tax GDP

1990-91 1.9 0.9 0.9 7.9 3.6 4.3 10.1

1991-92 2.5 1.1 1.3 8.3 3.6 4.6 10.9

1992-93 2.6 1.1 1.3 7.8 3.4 4.4 10.6

1993-94 2.5 1.1 1.3 6.8 2.8 4.0 9.5

1994-95 2.6 1.2 1.3 6.3 2.6 3.6 8.9

1995-96 2.8 1.3 1.4 6.5 3.0 3.4 9.4

1996-97 2.9 1.3 1.4 6.5 3.2 3.3 9.5

1997-98 3.2 1.1 1.3 5.9 2.7 3.2 9.2

1998-99 2.7 1.2 1.4 5.5 2.3 3.1 8.3

1999-2000 3.0 1.3 1.6 5.8 2.5 3.2 0.1 8.9

2000-01 3.2 1.5 1.7 5.6 2.3 3.3 0.1 8.9

2001-02 3.0 1.4 1.6 5.1 1.8 3.2 0.1 8.2

2002-03 3.4 1.5 1.9 5.3 1.8 3.4 0.2 8.8

2003-04 3.8 1.5 2.3 5.3 1.8 3.3 0.3 9.2

2004-05 4.1 1.5 2.6 5.3 1.8 3.1 0.4 9.4

2005-06 4.3 1.5 2.7 5.4 1.8 3.0 0.6 9.9

2006-07 5.1 1.8 3.4 5.6 2.0 2.7 0.9 11.1

2007-08 6.0 2.1 3.9 5.6 2.7 2.5 1.0 12.0

2008-09 5.7 1.9 3.8 4.8 1.8 1.9 1.1 10.8

2009-10 5.7 1.9 3.8 3.8 1.3 1.6 0.9 9.6

2010-11 5.6 1.8 3.8 4.4 1.7 1.8 0.9 10.2

2011-12 5.4 1.8 3.6 4.3 1.7 1.6 1.1 9.9

2012-13 5.5 1.9 3.5 4.7 1.6 1.7 1.3 10.2

2013-14 5.6 2.1 3.5 4.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 10.0

2014-15 5.7 4.8

(Economic Survey of various years)