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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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