Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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, 2013 s.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

Acts Income Tax