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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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

      Legal and Practical Implications for TDS on Offshore Fund Investments : Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 11 & 12] of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 196B of Income-tax Act, 1961

      25 June, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 393(2) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, specifically Table S.No. 11 and 12, introduces provisions regarding tax deduction at source (TDS) on income payable to offshore funds in respect of units and long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of such units. These provisions are the legislative successors to Section 196B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has governed similar transactions for over three decades. The new Bill, in seeking to overhaul and modernize the income tax framework, has restructured, clarified, and in some respects, altered the TDS regime for offshore funds investing in India through specified units.

      This commentary provides a comprehensive legal analysis of Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 11 & 12] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, examining its objectives, detailed mechanics, and practical implications. It then undertakes a comparative analysis with the existing Section 196B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, highlighting similarities, differences, interpretative issues, and the broader policy context.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 11 & 12] is to ensure efficient collection of tax at source on income earned by offshore funds from Indian units, as well as on long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of such units. The rationale is twofold:

      • To secure tax revenue from cross-border investment flows, particularly where the payee is a non-resident and the risk of non-compliance or non-reporting is higher.
      • To provide certainty and clarity to both payers and offshore funds regarding the applicable TDS rates, timing, and procedures, thereby reducing disputes and facilitating ease of doing business.

      Historically, Section 196B, read with Section 115AB of the 1961 Act, was introduced to attract foreign investment into Indian capital markets by offshore funds, while ensuring that the tax on such income is collected at the source. The 2025 Bill continues this policy, but with certain updates to reflect evolving market practices, international tax standards, and the need for greater legislative precision.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 11 & 12] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Text of the Provisions

      The relevant extract from Clause 393(2) Table is as follows:

      S. No.Nature of Income or SumPayeePayerRate
      11Any income in respect of units referred to in section 208Any Offshore fundAny person10%
      12Any income by way of long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of units referred to in section 208Any Offshore fundAny person12.5%

      The operative provisions require the person responsible for paying such income to deduct income-tax at the specified rates at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier, and in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Bill.

      Interpretation and Scope

      1. Nature of Income and Applicability

      The provisions apply to two distinct types of income:

      • S.No. 11: Income in respect of units - this generally refers to interest, dividend, or other periodic income (excluding capital gains) accruing to the offshore fund from units specified in section 208.
      • S.No. 12: Long-term capital gains from transfer of such units - this covers gains arising on the sale or redemption of the specified units by the offshore fund, provided the gains qualify as long-term under the Act.

      Section 208, though not reproduced here, is presumed to define the eligible units and offshore funds, largely in line with the erstwhile section 115AB of the 1961 Act.

      2. Payee and Payer

      The payee must be an "offshore fund" - a non-resident fund investing in specified Indian units. The payer is "any person" responsible for making such payment, which could include mutual funds, specified companies, or intermediaries.

      3. TDS Rates

      • For income in respect of units (S.No. 11): 10%
      • For long-term capital gains from transfer of such units (S.No. 12): 12.5%

      These rates are exclusive of surcharge and cess, unless otherwise provided. The distinction in rates reflects a policy shift, discussed in detail below.

      4. Timing and Manner of Deduction

      Tax is to be deducted at the time of credit of income to the payee's account or at the time of actual payment, whichever is earlier. This aligns with the general TDS mechanism under the Bill, ensuring that tax is collected at the earliest possible juncture.

      5. No Threshold Limit

      The table does not specify any monetary threshold for TDS applicability. Thus, tax is to be deducted irrespective of the quantum of payment, which is consistent with the policy of minimizing revenue leakage in cross-border transactions.

      6. Interaction with Other Provisions

      The deduction is "subject to the provisions of sub-sections (4), (8) and (9)," which deal with exceptions, declarations for non-deduction, and specific exclusions (such as payments to government, RBI, etc.). The Bill also provides for crediting to suspense accounts being deemed as payment to the payee, closing loopholes for deferral.

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Definition of "units" and "offshore fund": The interpretation will hinge on the cross-reference to section 208, which must be carefully drafted to avoid disputes about eligibility.
      • Interaction with Tax Treaties: The Bill is silent on whether the offshore fund can claim lower rates under a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). However, as per general principles and Section 90 of the 1961 Act (likely to be retained in the new Bill), the beneficial provisions of tax treaties should prevail.
      • Grossing up: If the agreement provides for payment "net of tax," the payer may need to gross up the payment so that the offshore fund receives the agreed amount after TDS.
      • Procedural Compliance: The payer must ensure timely deposit of TDS, filing of returns, and issuance of TDS certificates to the offshore fund, failing which penal consequences may arise.

      Practical Implications

      For Offshore Funds

      • Clear certainty on TDS rates applicable to income and long-term capital gains from units.
      • Potential for increased tax cost on long-term capital gains (12.5%) compared to the previous uniform rate of 10%.
      • Need to evaluate availability of lower rates under applicable tax treaties and the process for obtaining refunds or credit for excess TDS.

      For Payers (Indian Mutual Funds, Companies, etc.)

      • Obligation to identify payees as offshore funds and apply correct TDS rates without threshold exemption.
      • Increased compliance burden in terms of documentation, timely deduction, deposit, and reporting.
      • Responsibility to gross up payments where contractually required.

      For Tax Authorities

      • Enhanced ability to track and collect tax on cross-border investment income at the source.
      • Potential reduction in disputes due to clarified rates and scope.
      • Need for robust systems to process refund claims by offshore funds, especially where DTAA rates are lower or income is ultimately exempt.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 196B of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      1. Text of Section 196B

      Section 196B (as amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2024) reads:

      Where any income in respect of units referred to in section 115AB or by way of long-term capital gains arising from the transfer of such units is payable to an Offshore Fund, the person responsible for making the payment shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income-tax thereon at the rate of--
      (a) ten per cent. in respect of income from units referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 115AB;
      (b) ten per cent. in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of units referred to in section 115AB, which takes place before the 23rd day of July, 2024;
      (c) twelve and one-half per cent. in respect of long-term capital gains arising from transfer of units referred to in section 115AB, which takes place on or after the 23rd day of July, 2024.

      2. Similarities

      • Scope of Income: Both the old and new provisions cover income from units and long-term capital gains from the transfer of such units by offshore funds.
      • Payee and Payer: In both, the payee is an offshore fund, and the payer is any person responsible for making the payment.
      • Timing of Deduction: TDS must be deducted at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier.
      • Rates: The rates are harmonized, with 10% for income from units and 12.5% for long-term capital gains arising from transfers post-23 July 2024.

      3. Differences and Nuances

      • Reference to Underlying Provisions: Section 196B refers explicitly to units u/s 115AB, whereas Clause 393(2) refers to units u/s 208 of the new Bill. The substance is likely the same, but the cross-reference reflects the renumbering and restructuring in the new Bill.
      • Explicit Segregation in Table: The Bill splits the income into two distinct entries (S.No. 11 and 12), making the distinction between "income from units" and "long-term capital gains" more explicit.
      • Clarity in Rate Change: Section 196B details the rate change date (23 July 2024), while the Bill simply prescribes the rates. The transitional provision may be addressed elsewhere in the Bill or through subordinate legislation.
      • Wider Framework: Clause 393(2) is part of a comprehensive TDS table covering a wide range of payments to non-residents, providing a more integrated approach than the piecemeal structure of the 1961 Act.
      • Potential for Broader Application: Depending on the definition of "units referred to in section 208," the Bill may cover a broader or slightly different set of instruments than section 115AB, though the intent appears to be continuity.

      4. Ambiguities and Issues

      • Definition of "Offshore Fund": The Bill must clearly define "offshore fund" to avoid interpretational disputes, ensuring it aligns with international usage and the previous regime.
      • Transitional Provisions: The Bill should clarify the treatment of capital gains arising from transfers that straddle the effective date of the rate change (i.e., pre- and post-23 July 2024).
      • Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs): The TDS rates are subject to relief under applicable DTAAs, and the Bill should reiterate the primacy of treaty provisions where applicable.
      • Procedural Compliance: The Bill should clarify procedures for obtaining TDS certificates, filing returns, and claiming refunds, particularly for offshore funds with no presence in India.

      Practical Implications of the Changes

      1. For Offshore Funds

      - The increase in TDS rate on long-term capital gains from 10% to 12.5% may marginally impact post-tax returns for offshore funds on transfers occurring on or after 23 July 2024.

      - Offshore funds will need to monitor the date of transfer carefully for transactions near the cut-off date to ensure correct TDS rates are applied.

      2. For Payers

      - The clarity and explicit rates in the Bill should reduce ambiguity and the risk of under- or over-deduction.

      - The need to identify the nature of income (dividend/distributed income vs. long-term capital gains) and apply the correct rate is reinforced.

      3. For the Tax Administration

      - The integrated TDS table under the new Bill should facilitate easier monitoring and administration.

      - The explicit codification of the rate change aligns with the government's objective of transparency and predictability in tax policy.

      4. For the Indian Investment Ecosystem

      - While the TDS rate hike on long-term capital gains may be seen as a negative by some foreign investors, the overall clarity and continuity of the regime should preserve India's competitive position.

      - Advisors and market participants must update systems and processes to ensure compliance with the new rates and definitions

      5. Comparative Table

      AspectSection 196B of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 11 & 12] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      Capital Gains TDS Rate10% (for transfers before 23 July 2024); 12.5% (for transfers on/after 23 July 2024, as per 2024 amendment)12.5% (for all transfers; no reference to date)
      Reference to Underlying UnitsUnits referred to in Section 115AB (units of mutual funds purchased in foreign currency, specified companies, etc.)Units referred to in Section 208 (presumably similar, but needs confirmation; could be broader or narrower)
      Statutory LanguageSeparate treatment for income from units and capital gains, with explicit reference to date of transfer for rate changeSeparate S.No. for each, but applies the new 12.5% rate for capital gains without date bifurcation
      Legislative IntentInitially designed to provide concessional rates to attract offshore funds, later amended to increase capital gains TDSCodifies the new higher rate (12.5%) for long-term capital gains, aligning with the recent amendment, and consolidates in new framework
      Cross-ReferencesSection 115AB (detailed definitions and scope)Section 208 (new provision; scope to be verified)

      7. Policy and Interpretative Issues

      • Increase in TDS Rate on Capital Gains: The Bill cements the recent increase from 10% to 12.5% on long-term capital gains, signaling a policy shift to a higher tax take from offshore funds on exit gains.
      • Transitional Issues: Section 196B provides for a cut-off date (23 July 2024) for the rate change, whereas Clause 393(2) applies the new rate prospectively, potentially creating issues for transactions straddling the transition.
      • Definition of Units: If Section 208 under the new Bill is not perfectly aligned with Section 115AB, there could be unintended inclusions or exclusions, affecting the scope of the TDS obligation.
      • Procedural Modernization: The 2025 Bill is more comprehensive in laying down procedures, exceptions, and administrative machinery for TDS, potentially improving compliance and reducing litigation.
      • Interaction with Other Provisions: The Bill's integration of TDS rules across various income streams and payee categories allows for more streamlined administration, but increases the need for careful cross-referencing and compliance by payers.

      Conclusion

      Clause 393(2) [Table: S.No. 11 & 12] of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents both continuity and change in the taxation of offshore funds investing in Indian units. While it preserves the core principles of Section 196B, it updates the TDS regime to reflect recent policy decisions, notably an increased rate on long-term capital gains, and incorporates these rules into a more modern legislative framework. The absence of a threshold, the clear bifurcation between income from units and capital gains, and the cross-references to updated definitions aim to reduce ambiguity and enhance compliance.

      Payers and offshore funds must carefully navigate the new provisions, especially in light of the rate changes and any definitional differences in the new Bill. The interaction with tax treaties remains a critical area for both compliance and planning, and procedural diligence is essential to avoid penalties. The legislative evolution from Section 196B to Clause 393(2) demonstrates the balancing act between revenue protection and investment facilitation that underpins India's approach to cross-border taxation.


      Full Text:

      Clause 393 Tax to be deducted at source.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax