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

      Comparison of Section 208 "Tax on income from units 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)

      5 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 208 Tax on income from units purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The provided document is Clause 208 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version), titled "Tax on income from units purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer." It prescribes special tax treatment for "overseas financial organisations" investing in specified Indian units. The provision affects offshore funds and, indirectly, specified mutual funds and public financial institutions. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 208 is located in the Bill under the heading "Special provisions relating to non-residents and foreign company." It provides a targeted tax regime for an "overseas financial organisation" (Offshore Fund) that invests in India under arrangements with specified Indian entities and with SEBI approval. The clause covers income received in respect of units purchased in foreign currency, long-term capital gains on transfer of such units, and the balance of total income. Definitions provided in the clause include "overseas financial organisation," "public financial institution" (by reference to section 2(72) of the Companies Act, 2013), and "unit" (unit of a mutual fund specified in Schedule VII or the Unit Trust of India). Contextual policy objectives: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause creates a composite tax structure for Offshore Funds. The tax payable is determined by a table with three categories:

      • Income received in respect of units purchased in foreign currency - Income-tax payable stated as "10%."
      • Long-term capital gains arising from transfer of such units - Income-tax payable stated as "12.5%."
      • "Total income as reduced by income referred to in against serial numbers 1 and 2" - tax treatment described as "Income-tax chargeable on such income."

      Paragraph (2) addresses deduction limitations: where the Offshore Fund's gross total income consists only of the unit income or long-term capital gains (or both), no deductions are allowed u/ss 26-61 or section 93(1)(a) and (e) or under Chapter VIII. If gross total income includes such income along with other income, the clause requires that the gross total income be reduced by the unit incomes for the purpose of allowing Chapter VIII deductions "as if" the reduced gross total income were the fund's gross total income.

      Interpretation

      The clause establishes a preferential/segregated tax treatment for certain categories of income of Offshore Funds rather than taxing the whole global income under general rates. The table reflects source-specific rates (10% and 12.5%) and contemplates residual income taxed under ordinary provisions. The language in paragraph (1) as drafted in the Bill treats the column C entries as amounts payable; given those are percentages, interpretation requires reading them as rates. The clause also attempts to ring-fence specified incomes for limited deduction access, suggesting a legislative intent to limit deduction claims against the preferred categories. Legislative intent beyond the text: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Paragraph (2) provides the principal exception: where the fund's gross total income consists solely of the specified unit incomes, the clause disallows a broad swathe of deductions (sections 26-61, section 93(1)(a) & (e), and Chapter VIII). Where specified incomes form part of a mixed income stream, the specified incomes are to be segregated out for deduction computation purposes so that Chapter VIII deductions are allowed on the residual gross total income. Any other provisos or carve-outs: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An Offshore Fund has only income of 10 million INR from units purchased in foreign currency. Under the clause, that income would be subject to 10% tax; no deductions u/ss 26-61 or Chapter VIII would be allowable. The document does not state whether tax computation permits exemptions or credits; hence further computation specifics: Not stated in the document.
      • Example 2: An Offshore Fund has 10 million INR of unit income (subject to 10%) and 2 million INR of other income. The clause directs that the gross total income be reduced by the unit income for deduction purposes and that Chapter VIII deductions be allowed as if the reduced gross total income (2 million) were the gross total income. The document does not state how Chapter VIII deductions interact with other statutory reliefs or whether the 10% rate applies after or before such segregation for other taxes: Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause cross-references several statutory provisions: section 93(1)(a)/(e), Chapter VIII (deductions), sections 26-61, and the Companies Act definition for "public financial institution" (section 2(72)). It also references Schedule VII entries for identifying eligible mutual funds and requires SEBI approval for the arrangement. No implementing Rules, Notifications, or Circulars are cited in the Bill text provided. Where interaction with other tax provisions or double taxation treaties may arise: Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Section 208 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 208 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) and Practical Impact

      The two texts are substantially similar in structure and substantive content. Key textual differences and their practical impact are as follows:

      • Terminology for tax computation (Table column heading): The Act version (Section 208) states "Rate of income-tax payable" in column C, whereas the Bill (Clause 208 old version) uses "Income-tax payable" and, for item 3, "Income-tax chargeable on such income."
        • Practical impact: None substantive - both convey that fixed rates apply for specified incomes and the prevailing rates apply to the balance; the Act wording is marginally clearer in signalling rate-based computation.
      • References to section numbers for disallowance/deductions: Section 208 (Act) disallows deductions under "sections 28 to 58, 60 and 61 or section 93(1)(a) or (e) or under Chapter VIII"; Clause 208 (Bill) disallows deductions under "sections 26 to 61 or section 93(1)(a) and (e) or under Chapter VIII."
        • Practical impact: Potential substantive difference - the Bill's broader range (sections 26-61) would exclude more deductions if it were applied; the Act's narrower list (28-58, 60, 61) narrows the exclusion. If the Act text is authoritative, certain deductions falling in sections 26-27 or 59 would remain available; conversely, the Bill's earlier drafting would have disallowed those. The provided materials do not state legislative intent for this change.
      • Computation language for aggregate tax: Section 208(1) (Act) states the tax "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." The Bill phrasing said "shall be the aggregate of the amount specified in column C thereof."
        • Practical impact: The Act wording better describes rate application (rate x income); the Bill wording could be read as implying fixed amounts in column C. However, because column C contains percentage figures, the Act wording reduces ambiguity. The documents do not state any consequential computational rules beyond the table.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the clause: Offshore Funds must establish that (i) the investment arrangement is with an eligible public sector bank, public financial institution or specified mutual fund; and (ii) the arrangement has SEBI approval. The clause conditions preferential tax treatment on these qualifying facts; documentation and SEBI approval evidence will be material. Any procedural details or documentary standards: Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: maintain records of the arrangement with Indian entities, SEBI approval, characterization of units as "purchased in foreign currency," computation segregating incomes and application of the specified rates. The clause does not prescribe exact records or timeframes for retention: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 208 creates a separate tax regime for Offshore Funds investing in specified Indian units with SEBI-approved arrangements.
      • Specified incomes are taxed at 10% (income from units purchased in foreign currency) and 12.5% (long-term capital gains on transfer of such units); other income is taxed under ordinary provisions.
      • Deductions are broadly restricted where an Offshore Fund's gross total income consists solely of the specified incomes (disallowance stated for sections 26-61, section 93(1)(a) & (e), and Chapter VIII).
      • Where specified incomes coexist with other income, the clause requires segregation so Chapter VIII deductions apply to the residual income "as if" that residual were the gross total income.
      • Definitions and eligibility pivot on arrangements with specified Indian entities and SEBI approval; precise procedural and evidentiary requirements are not set out in the Bill text.
      • Certain drafting differences between the Bill and the later Act text (e.g., the range of sections listed for disallowance and the phrasing of tax computation) may affect deduction availability and interpretive clarity.

      Full Text:

      Section 208 Tax on income from units purchased in foreign currency or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax