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

      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