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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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