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 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 210 Old 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

Acts Income Tax