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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    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

      Comparison of Section 193 "Tax on income from Global Depository Receipts purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      4 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 193 Tax on income from Global Depository Receipts purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The materials are two texts: (i) Section 193 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (final statutory text) and (ii) Clause 193 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). Both address tax treatment of income from Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) acquired in foreign currency by resident employees of certain knowledge-based Indian companies or their subsidiaries. The documents matter to resident individual employees, employers in specified industries, tax administrators and advisers. Effective date or enactment/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: provision numbered 193 in the Income-tax Act, 2025 (and correspondingly in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version). Subject-matter: special tax treatment and specified rates for income from dividends on GDRs purchased in foreign currency under employee stock schemes and long-term capital gains on transfer of such GDRs where the taxpayer is a resident individual employee of an Indian company engaged in specified knowledge-based industries or services or of its subsidiary. The texts define multiple terms for the purposes of the section/clause. Any additional statutory cross-references appearing: section 2(87) of the Companies Act, 2013 and section 72(6) of the Income-tax Act (reference to non-application). Other cross-references or rules: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision applies to a resident individual who is an employee of an Indian company engaged in a "specified knowledge based industry or service" or an employee of its subsidiary (including foreign subsidiary). When such resident employee's total income includes certain GDR-related incomes, special tax treatment applies. The Table specifies three categories:

      • Dividend on GDRs of an Indian company issued under employee stock option schemes (as notified) and purchased in foreign currency - taxed at 10%.
      • Long-term capital gains (LTCG) from transfer of those GDRs - taxed at 12.5%.
      • Remaining total income (total income reduced by items 1 and 2) - taxed at "Rates in force" (i.e., regular applicable tax rates).

      Definitions relevant to scope are provided in subsection (4). Notable definitions: "Global Depository Receipts," "Overseas Depository Bank," and categories of "specified knowledge based industry or service" (information technology software; information technology service; entertainment service; pharmaceutical industry; bio-technology industry; and any other industry or service specified by Central Government notification). "Information technology software" and "information technology service" are defined with technical descriptions. The provision also treats subsidiary as per Companies Act, 2013 s.2(87), expressly including subsidiaries incorporated outside India.

      Interpretation

      The Act indicates a legislative intent to subject two specific types of GDR-related incomes received by resident employees in specified industries to specified, concessional or specialised tax rates (10% for dividends and 12.5% for LTCG), while preserving the regular taxation regime for the remainder of the taxpayer's income. The provision further isolates those GDR incomes for bespoke treatment by directing deductions and computation mechanics in subsection (2). The text suggests the approach of segregating certain income streams and taxing them at fixed rates rather than allowing them to be blended into progressive slab rates for the whole income.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and computational rules appearing in the text:

      • Subsection (2)(a): If gross total income consists only of dividends in respect of the GDRs (Table Sl. No. 1), no deduction shall be allowed to the individual under any other provision of the Act.
      • Subsection (2)(b): If gross total income includes any of the GDR incomes, the GDR income shall be excluded from gross total income for the purpose of computing deductions - i.e., deductions are computed as if gross total income were reduced by such GDR income.
      • Subsection (3): Section 72(6) shall not apply for computation of LTCG arising from transfer of the GDRs referred to in the table (i.e., rollover/aggregation rule in s.72(6) is inapplicable to these transfers).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A resident employee receives only dividend income of INR X from GDRs purchased in foreign currency under a notified ESOS. Under the provision, tax on that income is 10% and no other deductions under the Act are permitted. (All numeric amounts illustrative; No numeric examples are provided in the statutory text.)
      • Example 2: A resident employee has salary and also realises LTCG of INR Y on transfer of qualifying GDRs. LTCG taxed at 12.5%; the LTCG amount is excluded from gross total income for purposes of computing deductions - deductions are applied against the reduced gross total income (i.e., gross total income minus the GDR incomes). The remaining income is taxed at rates in force.

      Note: The text does not provide worked numerical examples. Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly disapplies section 72(6) for computation of LTCG on the specified GDR transfers. It also cross-refers to Companies Act, 2013s.2(87) for the definition of subsidiary. Any interaction with other sections, notifications or rules beyond those explicitly mentioned: Not stated in the document. The provision contemplates additional specification by the Central Government via notification for the ESOS eligible and for enumerating other industries/services (clause (f) in definitions).

      Differences between the Two Texts and Practical Impact

      Comparison identifies only limited textual divergences between the Section 193 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and the Clause 193 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) (Document 2). These differences and their practical impacts are summarised below.

      • Framing of subsection (1) tax computation: - Bill Old Version (Doc 2): states "the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of income-tax specified in the column C thereof." - Act (Doc 1): states "the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of income-tax computed at the rate specified in the column C applied on the corresponding income specified in column B."
        • Practical impact: The Act text expressly states that column C is a rate applied to the corresponding income (clarifies computational method). The Bill's wording could have been read as specifying absolute amounts; the Act removes ambiguity by explicitly making column C a rate. This clarification affects tax computation practice and removes potential interpretive disputes about method of calculation.
      • Table heading wording for item 3: - Bill: column C reads "Income-tax chargeable on such income." - Act: column C reads "Rates in force."
        • Practical impact: The Act's wording clarifies that for the residual taxable income (total income reduced by GDR income), existing tax rates (i.e., the rates otherwise in force) apply. The Bill language could be read as repeating a computation result rather than pointing to applicable rates. The Act aligns the table to conventional statutory drafting where special rates are set and remaining income taxed at prevailing rates.
      • Punctuation and enumeration of Table items in definitions: - Bill separates clauses in definition (4)(a)(i)-(iii) with slightly different punctuation and includes a trailing "and" before clause (f). - Act uses semicolons, and clause (f) follows without trailing "and."
        • Practical impact: These are drafting/presentation differences with no substantive change to meaning.
      • Scope language in opening of subsection (1): - Bill: lists "an individual, who is a resident and an employee of an Indian company engaged in specified knowledge based industry or service, or an employee of its subsidiary engaged in specified knowledge based industry or service." - Act: same content but formatted with parenthetical "(hereafter in this section referred to as the resident employee)."
        • Practical impact: substantively identical; Act formalises the short-form label "resident employee" for later cross-reference in the section.
      • Miscellaneous editorial differences: Minor differences such as insertion of "Income" in the Act table heading and more explicit phrasing in Act sub-section (1) (described above).
        • Practical impact: primarily clarity and removal of ambiguity in computation; no substantive extension or restriction of scope evident from the texts provided.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Employers and resident employees must identify whether GDRs were "issued as per such Employees' Stock Option Scheme as the Central Government may, by notification, specify" and whether the GDRs were purchased in foreign currency. Tax withholding and reporting must reflect the special rates (10% for dividends, 12.5% for LTCG). Failure to segregate these incomes for computation of deductions as mandated could result in under- or over-claiming of deductions and assessments.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the need to maintain documentation proving (a) GDRs were acquired under the relevant ESOS and purchased in foreign currency; (b) GDRs are of an Indian issuing company and listed on a recognised Indian stock exchange (where applicable) or meet other listing criteria in clause (4)(a); (c) employment status and industry classification of the employer/subsidiary. The statute does not prescribe specific forms or timelines. Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Act prescribes special tax rates for GDR-related dividend income (10%) and long-term capital gains (12.5%) for resident employees of specified knowledge-based companies or their subsidiaries.
      • GDR incomes are segregated from gross total income for the purpose of deduction computation; where gross total income consists only of GDR dividends, no deductions are allowed.
      • Section 72(6) is explicitly not applicable to LTCG on the specified GDRs.
      • Definitions tightly frame "Global Depository Receipts" and "specified knowledge based industry or service," with a power for the Central Government to notify further industries/services and ESOS schemes.
      • Main differences between the Bill Old Version and the Act are drafting clarifications concerning the computation method (Act clarifies column C is a rate) and the wording for residual income taxation ("Rates in force"), which reduce ambiguity but do not change substantive scope.

      Full Text:

      Section 193 Tax on income from Global Depository Receipts purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax