Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Special Tax Regimes for Investment Funds : Clause 224 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115UB of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      9 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 224 Tax on income of investment fund and its unit holders.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 224 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 marks a significant legislative intervention in the taxation of investment funds and their unit holders in India. It builds upon the established legal framework, primarily governed by Section 115UB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and its procedural counterpart, Rule 12CB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. These provisions collectively constitute the backbone of the "pass-through" tax regime for Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs), ensuring that income is taxed in the hands of the ultimate beneficiaries rather than the investment vehicle itself, subject to certain exceptions and conditions.

      The importance of this area of law lies in its direct impact on the structure, operation, and tax efficiency of pooled investment vehicles-especially AIFs, which are increasingly pivotal in India's capital markets and private investment landscape. The legislative evolution from Section 115UB to Clause 224 reflects not only the need for clarity and modernization but also the policy imperative to maintain India's competitiveness as a destination for alternative capital while safeguarding tax revenues and preventing abuse.

      This commentary provides a detailed analysis of Clause 224, elucidates its objectives, and compares its provisions with existing law and rules. It also examines the practical and policy implications for stakeholders, highlighting areas of continuity, change, and potential ambiguity.

      Objective and Purpose

      The principal objective behind Clause 224 is to codify and refine the special taxation regime for investment funds and their unit holders, preserving the "pass-through" principle while updating definitions, clarifying loss treatment, and aligning with regulatory developments. The legislative intent is to:

      • Ensure income from investment funds is taxed in the hands of unit holders, except for certain categories of income (e.g., business income).
      • Clarify the treatment and carry-forward of losses at both the fund and unit holder levels.
      • Provide for efficient tax administration and compliance through prescribed statements and disclosures.
      • Accommodate evolving regulatory structures, such as the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) regime.

      These objectives are rooted in policy considerations of neutrality, transparency, and the avoidance of double taxation or unintended tax deferral.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 224 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Overriding Effect and Scope 

      Clause 224(1) establishes the overriding nature of the provision, stipulating that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Act, income accruing to or received by a unit holder from investments in an investment fund is chargeable to tax as if the investments had been made directly by the unit holder. This "look-through" or "pass-through" approach is foundational to the regime, ensuring that the legal interposition of the fund does not alter the incidence or character of taxation for the investor.

      This mirrors Section 115UB(1) of the 1961 Act, with nearly identical language, thus preserving continuity in the core principle of pass-through taxation for eligible investment funds.

      2. Treatment of Losses 

      Clause 224(2) addresses the computation and set-off of losses at the fund level, bifurcating losses into those arising under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and other losses. The key features are:

      • Business losses are allowed to be carried forward and set off by the fund itself under Chapter VII, and are disregarded for pass-through purposes.
      • Other losses (e.g., capital losses), if arising in respect of units held for less than twelve months, are also ignored for pass-through purposes.

      This structure prevents the artificial transfer of short-term or business losses to unit holders, thereby curbing potential tax avoidance and aligning the tax treatment with the economic substance of investment holding periods.

      The language and effect are substantially similar to Section 115UB(2), which also distinguishes between business and other losses and imposes a minimum holding period for loss pass-through.

      3. Treatment of Accumulated Losses as of 31 March 2019 

      Clause 224(3) introduces a transitional rule for losses (other than business losses) accumulated at the fund level as of 31 March 2019. These losses are deemed to be the losses of unit holders who held units on that date, and such unit holders may carry forward and set off these losses for the remaining eligible period.

      Clause 224(4) expressly denies the fund the ability to carry forward such losses after 1 April 2019.

      This transitional mechanism was introduced in Section 115UB(2A) via amendment and is faithfully replicated in Clause 224. It addresses the practical challenge of loss carry-forward in the context of regime change, ensuring that investors are not unduly prejudiced or unjustly enriched.

      4. Character and Proportion of Income 

      Clause 224(5) provides that income paid or credited by the fund is deemed to retain its character and proportion in the hands of the unit holder as it had in the hands of the fund, subject to the loss treatment in sub-section (2). This preserves the integrity of the income stream (e.g., interest, dividends, capital gains) and prevents re-characterization for tax purposes.

      This provision is identical in substance to Section 115UB(3).

      5. Taxation of the Fund 

      Clause 224(6) clarifies that the fund's total income is taxed at the rates specified in the Finance Act if it is a company or firm, or at the maximum marginal rate in other cases. This ensures that only income not eligible for pass-through (primarily business income) is taxed at the fund level, while other income is taxed in the hands of unit holders.

      Section 115UB(4) is virtually identical in this respect. Notably, Section 115UB(5) of the 1961 Act, which excludes the application of Chapters XII-D and XII-E (relating to Dividend Distribution Tax and tax on distributed income), is omitted in Clause 224, possibly reflecting the abolition of DDT and changes in the tax regime for distributed income.

      6. Deemed Credit of Income 

      Clause 224(7) provides that income accruing to the fund but not paid or credited to unit holders is deemed to be credited to them on the last day of the tax year, in the proportion to which they would have been entitled. This prevents indefinite deferral of taxation through retention of income at the fund level.

      This is a direct carry-over from Section 115UB(6) and is essential for the integrity of the pass-through regime.

      7. Exclusion of Double Taxation 

      Clause 224(8) ensures that income already included in a unit holder's total income on an accrual basis is not taxed again when actually paid. This anti-duplication safeguard is crucial for fairness and is found in Explanation 2 to Section 115UB.

      8. Compliance and Disclosure 

      Clause 224(9) mandates that the person responsible for crediting or paying income must furnish a prescribed statement to both the unit holder and the tax authority, detailing the nature and quantum of income paid or credited, within a prescribed time and form. This is the statutory basis for compliance statements such as Forms 64C and 64D u/r 12CB.

      9. Definitions

      Clause 224(10) defines "investment fund", "trust", and "unit" in terms substantially identical to the definitions in Section 115UB, with explicit reference to funds regulated by SEBI and IFSCA. This ensures only regulated AIFs and similar vehicles are eligible for the regime.

      Practical Implications

      For Investment Funds

      • Tax Neutrality: The regime preserves tax neutrality for most categories of income, except business income, encouraging fund formation and investment activity in India.
      • Loss Ring-Fencing: The rules prevent the transfer of business losses and certain short-term losses to unit holders, thereby limiting tax arbitrage and aligning tax outcomes with economic substance.
      • Compliance Burden: Funds must maintain detailed records of income and loss allocations, holding periods, and must generate and file prescribed statements (Forms 64C and 64D) in a timely manner.
      • Transitional Relief: The transitional provisions for losses as of 31 March 2019 provide certainty and continuity for funds and investors affected by regime changes.

      For Unit Holders

      • Direct Taxation: Investors are taxed as if they held underlying investments directly, preserving the character of income and enabling utilization of losses (subject to conditions).
      • Holding Period Conditions: The requirement to hold units for at least twelve months to receive pass-through of certain losses may affect investment strategies and liquidity decisions.
      • Double Taxation Avoidance: The explicit exclusion of double taxation on accrual and actual receipt prevents unfair tax outcomes.

      For Regulators and Tax Authorities

      • Transparency and Oversight: The prescribed statements and electronic filing requirements facilitate monitoring and enforcement.
      • Alignment with SEBI/IFSCA: The regime is closely tied to regulatory recognition, ensuring only bona fide, regulated funds benefit from the special tax treatment.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 224 vs Section 115UB and Rule 12CB

      1. Structural and Substantive Parity

      Clause 224 is, in essence, a restatement and rationalization of Section 115UB, with only minor drafting changes. The core principles-pass-through taxation, loss treatment, holding period requirements, character retention, and compliance-are preserved. The definitions and scope are also largely identical.

      2. Notable Differences

      • Reference to Schedules and Chapters: Clause 224 refers to "Schedule V (Table: Sl. No. 1)" and "Chapter VII" for loss computation and set-off, whereas Section 115UB refers to Section 10(23FBA) and "Chapter VI". This reflects the structural reorganization in the new Bill, but the substantive effect is the same.
      • Omission of DDT/Distributed Income Provisions: Section 115UB(5) excludes the application of Chapters XII-D and XII-E (relating to DDT and distributed income tax). Clause 224 omits this, likely because DDT has been abolished and such provisions are obsolete.
      • Clarity and Modernization: Clause 224 uses updated terminology (e.g., "tax year" instead of "previous year") and references to IFSCA regulations, reflecting regulatory developments and modernization.

      3. Rule 12CB: Procedural Compliance

      Rule 12CB operationalizes the compliance requirements of Section 115UB(7) (and by extension, Clause 224(9)), prescribing:

      • Form 64C (to be furnished to unit holders by 30 June following the financial year).
      • Form 64D (to be furnished to the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner by 15 June following the financial year, electronically under digital signature, verified by an accountant).
      • Procedures for filing, security, and administration of the statements, including digital authentication and archival.

      These procedural rules are essential for transparency and auditability, ensuring that both investors and tax authorities have access to accurate and timely information regarding income allocations.

      Clause 224(9) continues the statutory basis for these requirements, and it is expected that corresponding procedural rules will be issued under the new Act.

      4. Policy Continuity and Evolution

      The comparative analysis demonstrates a high degree of continuity in policy and substance, with Clause 224 largely codifying the status quo while updating references and language. The focus remains on:

      • Preventing tax deferral and arbitrage through fund structures.
      • Ensuring tax neutrality and fairness for investors.
      • Aligning with evolving regulatory frameworks (SEBI, IFSCA).

      The abolition of DDT and the increasing importance of IFSCA-regulated funds are reflected in the updated provisions, indicating a forward-looking approach.

      Comparative Features Table

      FeatureClause 224 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 115UB of the Income-tax Act, 1961Rule 12CB of the Income-tax Rules, 1962
      Pass-through of incomeYes (Sub-section 1)Yes (Sub-section 1)N/A
      Business income taxed at fund levelYes (Sub-section 2(a))Yes (Sub-section 2(i))N/A
      Non-business losses: 12-month holdingYes (Sub-section 2(b))Yes (Sub-section 2(ii))N/A
      Legacy losses as of 31.03.2019Yes (Sub-sections 3, 4)Yes (Sub-section 2A)N/A
      Character/proportion of incomeYes (Sub-section 5)Yes (Sub-section 3)N/A
      Tax rates for fundFinance Act/MMR (Sub-section 6)Finance Act/MMR (Sub-section 4)N/A
      Deemed credit of incomeYes (Sub-section 7)Yes (Sub-section 6)N/A
      Double taxation avoidanceYes (Sub-section 8)Yes (Explanation 2)N/A
      Reporting obligationsYes (Sub-section 9)Yes (Sub-section 7)Yes (Forms 64C, 64D; timelines)
      Definition of investment fundSEBI/IFSCA regulated (Sub-section 10)SEBI/IFSCA regulated (Explanation 1)N/A

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Loss Attribution and Tracking: The practical challenge of tracking losses accumulated as of 31 March 2019 and attributing them to unit holders may require robust record-keeping and could lead to disputes or administrative complexity.
      • Minimum Holding Period: The twelve-month holding period for loss pass-through may be subject to interpretational disputes, especially in cases of unit transfers or redemptions close to the cut-off date.
      • Characterization of Income: The precise delineation of business income (taxed at fund level) versus other income (passed through) may be contentious in complex fund structures or hybrid investment strategies.
      • Procedural Compliance: Timely and accurate filing of Forms 64C and 64D is critical; non-compliance could lead to penalties or denial of tax benefits to investors.
      • Regulatory Overlap: As the regulatory landscape evolves (e.g., with IFSCA), ongoing alignment between tax and regulatory definitions is necessary to avoid gaps or overlaps.

      Conclusion

      Clause 224 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a careful restatement and rationalization of the existing pass-through tax regime for investment funds and their unit holders, as established under Section 115UB and Rule 12CB. By preserving the essential features of the regime-pass-through treatment, loss ring-fencing, character preservation, and compliance obligations-while updating references and terminology, the new provision ensures continuity, clarity, and alignment with current policy and regulatory realities.

      While the substantive framework remains largely unchanged, the modernization and clarification in Clause 224 are welcome, particularly in light of the growing sophistication and importance of the alternative investment sector in India. Stakeholders must continue to pay close attention to compliance requirements, record-keeping for loss attribution, and the evolving regulatory context to fully realize the benefits of the regime. Future reforms may focus on further simplifying compliance, enhancing clarity around hybrid income streams, and ensuring seamless integration with regulatory changes.

      Alternative Titles for the Commentary

      1. "Pass-Through Taxation of Investment Funds: An Analysis of Clause 224 in the Context of Section 115UB and Rule 12CB"
      2. "Clause 224 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025: Continuity and Change in the Taxation of Alternative Investment Funds"
      3. "Comparative Review of India's Pass-Through Regime: Clause 224, Section 115UB, and Rule 12CB"
      4. "Special Tax Regimes for Investment Funds: Legislative Evolution from Section 115UB to Clause 224"

       


      Full Text:

      Clause 224 Tax on income of investment fund and its unit holders.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax