Salaried Employee Tax Planning for Tax Year 2026-27: What Actually Changed

Most salaried employees who ask about tax planning at this point in the year have already had their employer deduct TDS all year under whatever regime they declared in April, and are now trying to figure out if that was the right call before they file. The honest answer for a growing number of people is that the new tax regime, now the default under Section 115BAC, isn't just simpler paperwork anymore — for a lot of salary ranges it's genuinely the better outcome, even setting aside the convenience.

The current slab structure

These are the rates under the new regime for FY 2025-26 (AY 2026-27), and they carry forward unchanged into Tax Year 2026-27 under the Income Tax Act, 2025:

Add 4% health and education cess on top of the computed tax. A ₹75,000 standard deduction applies automatically for salaried employees and pensioners under this regime — you don't need to claim it, it's built into how the payroll TDS calculation works.

The rebate that makes the lower income bands moot

Here's the part that changes the practical picture for a large slice of salaried Raipur employees: the Section 87A rebate under the new regime now goes up to ₹60,000 for anyone with taxable income up to ₹12 lakh, which brings the tax liability to zero at that level. Combine that with the ₹75,000 standard deduction, and a salaried employee with a gross salary up to roughly ₹12.75 lakh pays no income tax at all under the new regime — not a reduced amount, actually nil.

That threshold matters because it moves the real decision point for most people. If your salary sits below ₹12.75 lakh, the new regime almost certainly wins outright regardless of how much you'd otherwise claim under 80C or a home loan, simply because your liability is already zero. The comparison only gets genuinely interesting once you're earning meaningfully above that line.

What you give up under the new regime

The new regime doesn't let you claim most of the deductions people are used to:

• House Rent Allowance (HRA) exemption — the entire HRA component becomes taxable salary
• Chapter VI-A deductions under the old numbering — Section 80C investments (PPF, ELSS, life insurance, home loan principal), 80D health insurance premium, 80E education loan interest, and most of the rest of that chapter
• Leave Travel Allowance (LTA) exemption
• Home loan interest deduction on a self-occupied property under the old Section 24(b) framework

What you do keep: the standard deduction, employer's contribution to NPS under the applicable section (this one survives in the new regime specifically because it's treated as a business-friendly retirement incentive rather than a personal tax-saving deduction), and a few other narrow exceptions.

A worked comparison

Take a salaried employee in Raipur earning ₹18,00,000 gross, paying ₹2,40,000 annual rent (renting, no home loan), and capable of genuinely investing ₹1,50,000 under Section 80C plus ₹25,000 in health insurance premium under 80D.

New regime: Taxable income after the ₹75,000 standard deduction is ₹17,25,000. Tax works out to roughly ₹2,02,500 plus cess before any rebate — no rebate applies at this income level since it's above ₹12 lakh. Final liability after 4% cess: approximately ₹2,10,600.

Old regime, assuming this employee's HRA structure allows the full rent to be exempted (a reasonable assumption for someone paying ₹20,000/month rent against a comparable salary) and claiming the full ₹1,75,000 in 80C/80D deductions plus the old-regime standard deduction of ₹50,000: taxable income drops to roughly ₹13,55,000 (18,00,000 − 2,40,000 HRA exemption approx − 1,75,000 deductions − 50,000 standard deduction, adjusted for the actual HRA exemption formula). Under old-regime slabs, that produces a noticeably higher effective tax than the new-regime figure above once you run the actual old-regime rates, which start taxing earlier and at steeper bands despite the deductions — the exact crossover depends heavily on how much of the rent and 80C claims are real, not just theoretically available.

The point of walking through this isn't the specific number — it's that the answer depends entirely on how much you can actually claim, not how much the deduction limits theoretically allow. Someone who pays no rent, has no home loan, and doesn't consistently invest in 80C instruments has no real case for the old regime at almost any salary level. Someone with a large home loan on a self-occupied property and substantial rent (relevant for anyone maintaining a second residence for work, not uncommon among professionals splitting time between Raipur and Kalahandi) may still find the old regime worthwhile well above ₹12.75 lakh.

How to actually decide

1. List your genuine, already-committed deductions — not what you could theoretically invest, but what you're actually paying: home loan interest, rent you're actually paying, insurance premiums you already hold.
2. Run both regimes on your actual numbers, not a generic example — the crossover point moves significantly based on your specific rent and deduction profile.
3. Remember employees get to choose every year — unlike business/professional taxpayers, who face restrictions on how often they can switch, a salaried employee with no business income can pick whichever regime suits them at return-filing time, even if a different declaration was made to the employer for TDS purposes during the year. A mismatch between what was deducted and what you actually owe just becomes a refund or a small additional payment at filing.
4. Don't assume last year's answer still holds — if your rent, salary, or home loan position changed, rerun the comparison rather than defaulting to whatever you picked previously.

Related Advisory Services & Practice Guides

• Access expert statutory assistance for income tax advisory & compliance with our senior Chartered Accountants.
• Access expert statutory assistance for ITR filing services with our senior Chartered Accountants.