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 210 "Tax on income of Foreign Institutional Investors from securities 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 210 Tax on income of Foreign Institutional Investors from securities or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Two texts of a provision titled "Tax on income of Foreign Institutional Investors from securities or capital gains arising from their transfer" are presented: (1) Section 210 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (consolidated/authoritative statutory version) and (2) Clause 210 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (legislative draft). The provision prescribes special tax treatment and rates for specified funds and Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) on income from securities and capital gains. Affected parties: Foreign Institutional Investors, specified funds, and, indirectly, Indian revenue authorities and intermediaries administering tax withholding/compliance. Effective date / decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: The provision is located among "Special provisions relating to non-residents and foreign company." It cross-references sections 173(c), 196, 198, sections 28-61/26-61 (depending on text), section 72(6), Chapter VIII and section 93(1)(a)/(e), Schedule VI, and section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Definitions provided in the text: "Foreign Institutional Investor" (to be specified by Central Government notification), "permanent establishment" (as in s. 173(c)), "securities" (as in s. 2(h) of the SCRA, 1956), and "specified fund" (meaning assigned in Schedule VI [Note 1]). The provision divides income into specified categories (income in respect of securities; short-term and long-term capital gains of different types) and prescribes specific tax rates for each category; remaining total income is taxed at rates "in force" or as "income-tax chargeable" (wording differs between texts). The provision also contains rules on applicability to specified funds (attributable to units held by non-residents), carve-outs for investment divisions of offshore banking units, denial/allowance of deductions, non-application of s.72(6), and definitional clauses.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision applies to an assessee that is a "specified fund" or "Foreign Institutional Investor" and prescribes that the aggregate tax payable is computed by applying fixed rates to specific categories of income listed in a table. The table entries are: (1) income in respect of securities (other than units under s.208) - 20% (FII) / 10% (specified fund); (2) short-term capital gains (other than those under s.196) from transfer of such securities - 30%; (3) short-term capital gains under s.196 - 20%; (4) long-term capital gains (not under s.198) from such transfers - 12.5%; (5) long-term capital gains under s.198 exceeding Rs.125,000 - 12.5%; (6) total income as reduced by items 1-5 - taxed at rates in force / income-tax chargeable (textual variance between documents). The section prescribes computation limits for specified funds (attributable to units held by non-residents), special application to investment divisions of offshore banking units fulfilling Schedule VI criteria, denial of certain deductions where gross total income consists only of category (1), transitional treatment of gross total income for deduction computations, and exclusion of s.72(6) for specified capital gain computations. Definitions for key terms are set out in the section.

      Interpretation

      The text manifests an intent to subject FIIs and specified funds to specific, segregated tax treatment for securities-related income and capital gains, isolating such income categories and applying fixed rates rather than ordinary rates. The provision requires segregating income categories to compute tax and prescribes that when income consists only of securities income, many routine deductions are not available. The requirement that specified funds limit application to income attributable to units held by non-residents indicates intent to tax only the non-resident-linked share of a specified fund's income under this special regime.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Notable carve-outs and conditions in the text: (a) For specified funds, application is limited to income attributable to units held by non-residents (calculation method to be prescribed). (b) If a specified fund is an investment division of an offshore banking unit that meets Schedule VI criteria, the section applies to the income attributable to that investment division (calculation as prescribed). (c) Where gross total income consists solely of securities income (Table Sl. No.1), deductions under listed sections/chapters are disallowed. (d) Where gross total income includes any of the Table Sl. No.1-5 incomes, the gross total income must be reduced by such amounts and deductions under Chapter VIII allowed as if the reduced gross total income were the gross total income. (e) Section 72(6) shall not apply to computation of capital gains in Sl. No.2-5. These provisos are explicit in the texts provided.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An FII earns dividend/interest (income in respect of securities) of X and short-term capital gains (not under s.196) of Y. Tax on X will be computed at 20%; tax on Y at 30%; any remaining income will be taxed at rates in force (or as the act prescribes). (Consistent with text; numerical figures are illustrative only.)
      • Example 2: A specified fund has gross total income consisting only of securities income; it will be denied deductions u/ss 28-58 (or 26-61 depending on text) and Chapter VIII as specified. (Consistent with text.)
      • Example 3: A specified fund's offshore banking unit investment division that meets Schedule VI criteria will have the provision apply only to income attributable to that division as prescribed. (Consistent with text.)

      Interplay

      The provision cross-refers to multiple sections and Schedule VI; it modifies the usual interaction between taxable income categories and deductibility by excluding certain deductions where income is only securities income and by adjusting gross total income for deduction calculations where specified categories are present. It also excludes s.72(6) for capital gain computation for the identified categories. References to definitions in other statutes (Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act) mean that the interpretation of "securities" depends on that Act. The document does not specify the detailed manner of calculating attributable income for specified funds - it states "as may be prescribed" or "as prescribed," indicating reliance on subordinate rules; those rules are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Two Texts and Practical Impact

      • Wording and formatting: The Bill (Clause 210Old Version) and the Section 210 text are substantively similar in structure and rates. Differences are mainly textual/corrective (e.g., phrasing "shall be the aggregate of the amounts mentioned in column C thereof" vs. "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: No substantive change in tax incidence; the statutory version clarifies computation method by explicit reference to applying the rate to corresponding income.
      • Denial of deductions - cross-references differ: The Bill refers to denial of deductions under "sections 26 to 61 or section 93(1)(a) or (e) or under Chapter VIII;" the Section 210 text refers to "sections 28 to 58, 60 and to 61 or section 93(1)(a) or (e) or under Chapter VIII."
        • Practical impact: The statutory text's citation differs in range; this is potentially substantive if it includes/excludes particular sections. The document does not explain rationale for the change. Which precise sections are intended and whether any substantive deduction scope changed is Not stated in the document.
      • Offshore banking unit carve-out description: The Bill describes the condition as two-part (is investment division of an offshore banking unit as specified in Schedule VI (Table: Sl. No. 1) and fulfils the conditions referred to in Schedule VI (Note 1)). The statutory Section 210 phrases it as application where the specified fund is an investment division of an offshore banking unit and then refers to clause (g)(ii) of Note 1 of the Table in Schedule VI as a Category-I portfolio investor under SEBI (FPI) Regulations, 2019; calculation to be prescribed.
        • Practical impact: The statutory text specifically ties the carve-out to the SEBI FPI Regulations and to a category reference, potentially narrowing or clarifying the class of offshore banking divisions covered. The document does not state the policy reason or whether the scope widened or narrowed numerically.
      • Final line on taxation of remaining income: The Bill's Table Sl. No.6 says "Income-tax chargeable on such income." The statutory version says "Rates in force."
        • Practical impact: The statutory wording "Rates in force" may signal that the residual income is taxed under the general rates applicable to the assessee, while the Bill wording is equivalent but less explicit. No change to substantive outcome is evident from the document.
      • Definitions: Both texts define key terms similarly; in one the phrase is "means an investor so specified" and in the other "means such investor as specified in a notification."
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting difference without clear substantive impact in the documents provided.

      Practical Implications

      • Segregation and computation: Assessing FIIs and specified funds must segregate income into specified categories and apply prescribed fixed rates to those categories. Records must support classification of income as "income in respect of securities," short-term or long-term capital gains, and whether such gains fall u/ss 196/198. (The precise calculation methods for attribution and exclusions are Not stated in the document.)
      • Deduction denial: Where gross total income consists only of securities income, many deductions are disallowed; where mixed, taxpayers must reduce gross total income by the specified incomes to compute allowable deductions-this requires robust internal accounting to separate securities income from other income. The exact list of disallowed sections varies slightly between texts and the statute should be followed.
      • Specified fund attribution: Taxation of a specified fund under this section only applies to income attributable to units held by non-residents (other than a PE). The method of attribution is to be prescribed; absent the rules in the document, practical compliance remains uncertain. Not stated in the document: the prescribed method and timing for attribution.
      • Offshore banking unit division: Investment divisions meeting Schedule VI/SEBI criteria are addressed specifically; such divisions will need to confirm whether they meet the referred criteria to determine applicability. Not stated in the document: procedural proof/evidence to demonstrate eligibility under Schedule VI/SEBI.
      • Capital gains computation: Section 72(6) (relating to set-off of losses in certain situations) is excluded for the listed capital gains categories, affecting the ability to carry forward or set off certain losses in these computations. Tax practitioners must note this exclusion when advising on capital gain computations for FIIs/specified funds.

      Key Takeaways

      • The provision prescribes fixed tax rates on specified securities income and capital gains for FIIs and specified funds, with residual income taxed at general rates.
      • Specified funds are taxed under this section only to the extent of income attributable to units held by non-residents; calculation method to be prescribed (Not stated in the document).
      • Certain deductions are disallowed where income consists solely of securities income; where mixed, adjustments to gross total income are required before permitting Chapter VIII deductions.
      • Section 72(6) does not apply for computing the identified capital gains categories.
      • Textual differences between the Bill and the statutory section are primarily drafting clarifications and specific references (e.g., SEBI FPI Regulations) that refine scope but do not materially alter the rate structure in the documents provided.
      • Several operational details (method for calculating attributable income, procedural/compliance steps for offshore investment divisions, and precise list of disallowed deduction sections where wording differs) are Not stated in the document and depend on prescribed rules or subordinate instruments.

      Full Text:

      Section 210 Tax on income of Foreign Institutional Investors from securities or capital gains arising from their transfer.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax