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
    PMLA and Predicate Offenses: Deciphering the Scope of Proceeds of Crime under PMLA: A Supreme Court ...
    Resolution Applicant's Eligibility under the IBC: A Balancing Act Between Stringent Rules and MSME P...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Dynamics of Tax Exemption Registrations: A Comprehensive Analysis of ITAT Ahmedabad’s Decision on ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Transfer Pricing Litigation: The Evolving Landscape of Arm's Length Price Determination in India
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Pre-deposit Compliance in Appeals: Judicial Overreach by CESAT
    Revisiting Shareholder Rights in Securities Law: Deciphering the Bounds of Confidentiality in Corpor...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Professional Conduct in Auditing: Exploring the Jurisdiction and Compliance in Auditor (Chartered Ac...
    Comprehensive Legal Analysis of Jurisdictional Challenges and SEBI's Regulatory Framework in Securit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of Revisionary Powers U/s 263: Assessing the Adequacy of Assessment Procedures ...
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in Governmental Policy Decisions: Tax Incentives and Public Inte...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maintaining the Sanctity of Search and Seizure Procedures: Emphasizing the rigorous compliance with ...
    The Confluence of Insolvency and Limitation Laws: Insights from a NCLAT Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analyzing the Tax Implications of Cross-Border Payments: Recognizing the payments as either 'Royalty...
    Case LawsCustoms
    A Judicial Perspective on Duty Assessment and Procedural Fairness in Customs Law: Validity of CBIC C...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Non-Delegability of Discretionary Powers in Income Tax Assessments: Administrative Discretion in Spe...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Domain Registration Services in Godaddy.Com LLC Case: Tax Implications for Digital Serv...
    Reinforcing Fair Administrative Processes in GST Registration Cancellation: An In-Depth Case Study
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Arbitration Conundrum: Enforceability of Unstamped Agreements
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Reassessing Tax Penalties: HDFC Bank's Challenge under the DVAT Act
    Input Tax Credit Eligibility under GST Legislation: Time-Bound Compliance in GST ITC Cases
❯❯
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 LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Proceeds of crime: PMLA targets handling of tainted assets even where the person is not named in the predicate offence, scope narrowed for conspiracies.
    Existence of proceeds of crime is a prerequisite for an offence under the PMLA and must be derived from a scheduled offence; the PMLA reaches persons who handle, conceal or possess tainted proceeds even if not named in the predicate offence. Conspiracy under Section 120B becomes a scheduled offence only when the conspiracy aims to commit an offence already listed in the PMLA Schedule, narrowing scheduled-offence scope. Property acquired prior to the scheduled offence cannot be treated as proceeds, whereas disputed acquisitions require trial determination of their linkage to tainted funds.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under Section 29A clarified; MSME exemption under Section 240A applies at plan submission stage.
    Whether a resolution applicant is disqualified under Section 29A depends on the ineligibility criteria and the timing of assessment; the operative date for eligibility is the submission of the resolution plan, and Section 240A provides an MSME-targeted exemption from certain disqualifications to protect continuity and livelihoods.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax exemption registration: tribunal ordered reconsideration where delay arose from bona fide reliance on provisional registration and circulars.
    The Tribunal held that rejection of the final registration application under Section 80G for being time barred was improper where the Commissioner did not consider administrative circulars extending filing timelines and the trust's bona fide reliance on provisional registration; the ITAT set aside the order and directed reconsideration with an opportunity to be heard.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Arm's Length Principle enforcement: comparables, functional profiling, and admissibility of additional evidence determine transfer pricing outcomes.
    Dispute concerns determination of Arm's Length Price (ALP) for international transactions, focusing on comparable selection, adjustments for functional differences, and functional profiling's effect on ALP reliability. The Tribunal also deals with the admissibility of additional evidence on appeal and scrutiny of changes in benchmarking approaches across assessment years, stressing contemporaneous, consistent documentation and justification for methodological changes while balancing procedural finality and factual completeness.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit requirement undermined by tribunal restoration without compliance, raising jurisdictional and laches concerns in excise appeals procedure scrutiny.
    The Tribunal's restoration and allowance of excise appeals without a prior pre-deposit requirement raises whether a lower tribunal may waive mandatory pre-deposit obligations and whether such action aligns with supervisory limits imposed by higher court directives and doctrines like functus officio and res judicata.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder access to confidential corporate documents affirmed where confidentiality is overstretched, strengthening minority investor protections.
    Minority shareholders are entitled to access corporate documents where confidentiality claims are overstated; confidentiality and privilege cannot be used to withhold information necessary for assessing compliance with securities law. SEBI's settlement framework cannot shield material information from shareholder scrutiny; regulatory processes must balance investigatory integrity with transparency and natural justice. Non compliance with Minimum Public Shareholding norms undermines market integrity and minority rights, and settlements of serious violations require sufficient transparency to protect investor interests.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective jurisdiction of regulator challenged; effect on auditor liability, standards compliance and sanctions under companies law.
    Allegations of professional misconduct assert auditors failed to comply with statutory audit obligations, disclose material facts, exercise due diligence, obtain necessary information, and identify departures from accepted audit procedures. Appellants challenge the regulator's retrospective jurisdiction, invoke constitutional protection against retrospective penalization, and allege procedural breaches of natural justice; the regulator maintains jurisdiction, contends it afforded hearing opportunities, and asserts substantive non compliance with Standards on Auditing.
    Case LawsSEBI
    Show AI Summary
    Territorial jurisdiction disputes in securities cases shape venue decisions and challenge regulatory settlement revocations and discretion.
    Disputes over venue in securities enforcement pivot on territorial jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens, using cause of action and convenience factors to determine appropriate forum. SEBI's settlement regime under the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulation 2018 and the regulator's power to revoke settlements raise questions about regulatory discretion, enforceability of negotiated resolutions, and implications for corporate governance and market integrity, while High Courts' supervisory role under Article 226 intersects with statutory enforcement mechanisms.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisionary powers under Section 263 limited where assessment thoroughly examined transactions and no specific error is shown.
    Scope of revisionary powers under Section 263 is limited where the original assessment shows a detailed examination and allowance of losses; direction for re-examination without specific findings of error prejudicial to revenue is insufficient. Transactions integral to business and carried out as hedging do not fall within the definition of speculative transactions under Section 43(5).
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Promissory estoppel prevents withdrawal of promised tax incentives for industrial units that invested in reliance on them.
    The dispute concerns whether the State could withdraw tax incentives by reclassifying areas and thereby affect units that invested relying on those incentives. Applying promissory estoppel, the court determined that promises inducing substantive investment could not be retracted to the detriment of the beneficiaries during the promised exemption period, balancing that protection against the State's public interest prerogative and subsequent structural tax reform.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search and seizure procedural compliance: satisfaction note requirement under section 153C governs validity of assessments.
    Assessments against persons other than the searched individual require a recorded satisfaction by the assessing officer that seized assets or documents belong to that other person; absence of a satisfaction note in the searched person's file invalidates consequential assessments under the search-derived assessment provisions. Determination of the applicable assessment years hinges on whether the assessment period is tied to the date of search, the date satisfaction is recorded, or the date seized material is received, requiring harmonious construction to align enforcement with taxpayer protections.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation in insolvency: admissibility requires established debt and default and bars further merits inquiry at admission.
    Where a claim establishes debt and default and the petition is within limitation, the Tribunal's role at the admission stage is limited to admitting the corporate insolvency resolution process without undertaking an extensive merits inquiry into the underlying debt or default.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Characterisation of cross-border payments as royalty or service fees determines withholding obligations under tax treaty and domestic law.
    Characterisation of cross-border payments under the Income Tax Act and the India-USA DTAA focused on whether payments to a US non-resident constituted royalty or fees for included services under section 9(1)(vii) and Article 12, whether TDS obligations arose, and whether sections 201(1) and 201(1A) could be invoked; the Karnataka High Court and ITAT concluded the payments were not royalty/fees for included services, services were rendered outside India, the payee lacked an Indian permanent establishment, and therefore withholding obligations did not arise.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness in customs law limits administrative conditions on provisional release, ensuring statutory discretion and fair hearing.
    The court evaluated whether the impugned Circular and order unlawfully limited the adjudicating authority's statutory discretion by imposing conditions on provisional release, and whether those measures violated principles of natural justice; it emphasised that executive instructions may supplement but cannot supplant statutory provisions and that administrative actions must preserve statutory discretion and fair hearing requirements.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non-delegability of discretionary powers: extension of tax audit report time must be granted by assessing officer, not delegate.
    The power to order a special audit and to extend the timeframe for submission of the audit report is vested in the Assessing Officer and must be exercised by that officer alone; administrative convenience cannot justify delegation to the Commissioner. An extension granted by the Commissioner, even if prompted by the AO's recommendation, is inconsistent with the statutory scheme and can render subsequent assessment orders vulnerable to being barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization of domain registration fees requires a transfer of proprietary or use rights; mere registrar facilitation does not qualify.
    Whether fees for domain name registration qualify as royalty depends on whether the registrar transfers a proprietary or right-to-use interest; a registrar acting as intermediary under its accreditation agreement that disclaims ownership and does not convey exclusive or transferable rights does not convert registration fees into royalty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in GST registration: deficient show cause notices require reconsideration and a fresh opportunity to respond.
    Cancellation of GST registration on grounds such as fraud or suppression must comply with natural justice; a show cause notice lacking specific allegations and a decision that does not consider the taxpayer's response constitutes procedural deficiency, necessitating administrative reconsideration with a reasoned notice that permits an adequate reply.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Arbitration agreement enforceability tested against stamp duty compliance, affecting admissibility and tribunal jurisdiction.
    The central issue is whether an arbitration agreement in an unstamped instrument is enforceable, engaging the Arbitration Act, Stamp Act and Contract Act and asking if courts must examine only the existence of an arbitration clause or also its validity when stamp duty non compliance is alleged. The text contrasts lines of authority treating non stamping as either a jurisdictional bar that voids enforceability or a curable defect affecting admissibility, and highlights statutory mechanisms for stamping, impoundment, and remediation while mapping the practical consequences for arbitration access and enforcement.
    Case LawsVAT / Sales Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty proportionality: penalties require deceptive conduct and mens rea before applying to disputed tax assessments.
    The decision analyzes penalties under the DVAT framework in relation to sales of repossessed vehicles, stressing that taxability remained unsettled and that penalties require conduct that is false, misleading, or deceptive. It highlights that mens rea is central to quasi criminal tax penalties and that proportionality and reasoned discretion are prerequisites to lawful penal levies; absent those elements, penalty imposition lacks statutory support.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit time limits require strict compliance with statutory filing conditions, not relaxation for business constraints.
    The court construes Input Tax Credit as a concession contingent on strict compliance with statutory prerequisites, holding that time-bound procedural conditions operate as substantive preconditions to claiming ITC. The non-obstante clause is given a limited operative scope and does not nullify mandatory temporal conditions; established principles of tax-statute interpretation require literal application of the scheme and adherence to filing timelines despite commercial hardships.

    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 SCHEDULE V "INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF CERTAIN ELIGIBLE PERSONS INCLUDING INVESTMENT FUNDS, BUSINESS TRUSTS AND THEIR UNIT HOLDERS" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      18 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      SCHEDULE V - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF CERTAIN ELIGIBLE PERSONS INCLUDING INVESTMENT FUNDS, BUSINESS TRUSTS AND THEIR UNIT HOLDERS

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      SCHEDULE V (See section 11) sets out categories of income that are excluded from total income for specified eligible persons, including investment funds, business trusts, venture capital vehicles and certain foreign sovereign/pension wealth investors. It matters to institutional investors, business trusts (including REITs/InvITs), alternative investment funds, venture capital entities, and certain foreign public investment vehicles. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      The Schedule is framed as a supplementary schedule to the Income Tax Bill, 2025, relying on section 11 for placement ("See section 11"). It creates explicit exclusions from "total income" for defined classes of persons and specified income streams, subject to conditions set out in the Table and Notes. The Schedule relies heavily on cross-references to other statutory provisions and external regulatory instruments (SEBI regulations, RBI notifications, IFSC Regulations). Definitions relevant to the Table are supplied in a series of Notes (Note 1 through Note 5). The Schedule does not otherwise provide legislative history or policy rationales. Definitions provided include "investment fund" (Note 1 by cross-reference to section 224(10)(a)), "special purpose vehicle" (Note 2), "real estate asset" (Note 3 via SEBI REIT regulation), definitions for "venture capital company/fund/undertaking" (Note 4), and an expansive Note 5 defining "specified person" and related concepts (investee, loan and borrowing, eligible infrastructure entity, eligible AIF, eligible domestic company, eligible NBFC, eligible InvIT).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The Schedule operates as a negative list: when computing total income for the tax year of an eligible person (column C), specified income (column B) "shall not be included", subject to conditions (column D) and meanings in the Notes. The Table has eight numbered entries:

      • Sl. No.1: Entire income other than "Profits and gains of business or profession" is excluded for an "investment fund" (meaning per section 224(10)(a)).
      • Sl. No.2: A unit-holder of an investment fund will not include any income referred to in section 224 that accrues/arises/is received to that unit-holder being the proportion of income which is of the same nature as income chargeable under "Profits and gains of business or profession".
      • Sl. No.3: A business trust is exempt from including interest/dividend received or receivable from a "special purpose vehicle" (defined as an Indian company in which the trust holds controlling interest and any specific percentage as required by registration law).
      • Sl. No.4: A business trust that is a real estate investment trust is exempt from including income by way of renting/leasing/letting out real estate assets owned directly by such trust (with "real estate asset" cross-referenced to SEBI REIT regulation 2(1)(zj)).
      • Sl. No.5: Any unit holder of a business trust is not required to include distributed income u/s 223, subject to carve-outs: exemption will not be allowed to the extent the distributed income is of the same nature as (a) interest from an SPV to the business trust, (b) dividend from an SPV to the business trust where SPV exercised option u/s 200, or (c) income of a REIT by renting/leasing/letting directly owned real estate.
      • Sl. No.6: Venture capital companies or venture capital funds (other than being an "investment fund" per section 224(10)(a)) are exempt from including income from investment in a venture capital undertaking, subject to the detailed definitions in Note 4.
      • Sl. No.7: A broad exemption for "specified persons" from including dividend, interest, certain sums referred to in section 92(2)(k), or long-term capital gains arising from investments in India (debt/equity/units) is set out, subject to detailed conditions in clause (a)-(h). Conditions include investment dates (on or after 1 April 2020 and on or before 31 March 2030), minimum holding period of three years, specified types of investee entities, guideline-making powers for the Board with parliamentary oversight, clawback where conditions are no longer met, proportional calculation rules for partially invested entities, and an express exclusion where sovereign wealth or pension funds have loans/borrowings for investment in India.
      • Sl. No.8: Income falling sections 10(23F)/(23FA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is excluded subject to conditions specified in those sections.

      Interpretation

      The Schedule is drafted to provide targeted tax neutrality/exemption for institutional investment vehicles and certain foreign public investors, with protective conditions and calculation rules. Interpretive principles implicit in the text include reliance on external definitions and regulatory instruments to determine qualifying investments (SEBI/AIF/RBI instruments). The Schedule grants the Board guideline-making power for interpretive/implementation difficulties in respect of Sl. No.7, subject to prior approval of the Central Government and parliamentary laying, and states such guidelines will be binding on the Income-tax Authority and the specified person.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The Schedule contains several carve-outs: Sl. No.5 limits exemption for unit-holders where the distributed income is of the same nature as certain income streams (interest/dividend from SPV; REIT rental income). Sl. No.7 contains multiple provisos including time limits for investment, holding periods, investment type restrictions, proportional computation rules for mixed investments, a clawback on failure to satisfy conditions, and an explicit non-eligibility where sovereign funds/pension funds have borrowings for the purpose of investment in India.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An investment fund (as per section 224(10)(a)) receives dividend and interest but does not carry on a business. Under Sl. No.1, that income other than "Profits and gains of business or profession" is not included in total income. (Text supports exclusion; specific mechanics of computation are "Not stated in the document.")
      • Example 2: A business trust (not a REIT) receives interest from an SPV in which it has controlling interest. Sl. No.3 excludes interest received from an SPV from the trust's total income. (No further procedure for documentation or withholding given in the Schedule: "Not stated in the document.")
      • Example 3: A sovereign wealth fund that borrowed to finance its investment into an eligible infrastructure entity in India. Note 5(h) expressly deems such a fund not eligible for exclusion. (Effect is exclusion of the tax benefit.)

      Interplay

      The Schedule expressly interacts with section 224 and section 223 of the principal Act, and with sections 10(23F)/(23FA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It also depends on SEBI regulations (REIT Regulations, AIF Regulations), IFSC Regulations, RBI notifications/directions and other external instruments for qualifying definitions and regulatory thresholds. The Schedule contemplates guidelines by the Board in certain situations, which will be binding once issued with Central Government approval and laid before Parliament.

      Differences between SCHEDULE V - Income-tax Act, 2025 (Document 1) and Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2)

      • Scope descriptions and defined cross-references: Document 1 uses phrasing like "being an eligible InvIT" in Note 5(f) whereas Document 2 says "a business trust" in Sl. No. 7(iii)(A). There are several small differences in the wording of definitions and cross-references (for instance, section references where Document 1 cites section 138 generally and Document 2 cites section 138(11) in Note 5(d)).
        • Practical impact: Potential for interpretive nuance. Where a provision in the Bill cites a more specific sub-clause (e.g., 138(11)), it narrows or clarifies the statutory hook; where the Act uses a broader reference, administrative or judicial interpretation may be slightly more expansive. However, based on the two documents provided, these are editorial variations and would need authoritative consolidation to determine any change in legal effect.
      • Clarifications in Note language: Document 2's Notes include different parenthetical or explanatory labels (e.g., "hereinafter referred to as..."/"as provided herein") that are absent or phrased differently in Document 1.
        • Practical impact: Mostly drafting style differences; where Document 2 explicitly states "as provided herein" or "as prescribed," there is a clear pointer to internal calculation or prescription requirements. Document 1 sometimes uses slightly different language but does not materially change obligations.
      • References to regulatory instruments: In Note 4 and other notes, Document 2 contains slightly different citations and elaborations of the SEBI/AIF/IFSC statutory instruments and RBI directions (for example, mention of "Infrastructure Debt Fund - Non-Banking Financial Companies (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2011" in Document 2 versus other RBI instruments or phrasing in Document 1).
        • Practical impact: Could affect which external regulations are treated as the relevant regulatory standard for qualifying entities; in practice, tax administrators and regulated entities will look to the final consolidated law text and the referenced regulation texts for compliance. On face value, these are drafting distinctions requiring harmonisation with the final statute/regulations.
      • Eligibility carve-outs for specified persons: Both documents set out an extensive definition of "specified person" in Note 5. The Act (Document 1) and Bill (Document 2) are materially similar, but there are small syntactic differences (e.g., the Act explicitly lists "eligible InvIT" in some parts).
        • Practical impact: No clear substantive difference from the provided text; any practical impact depends on which of the two wordings is enacted and the interpretive approach of authorities.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Entities seeking the exclusions must track qualifying status under multiple regulatory frameworks (SEBI/AIF/RBI) and the temporal/holding period conditions for Sl. No.7 (investment window 1 April 2020-31 March 2030; three-year hold). Failure to satisfy conditions triggers clawback charging the income in the tax year of failure.

      • Record-keeping/evidence: While the Schedule does not specify documentary requirements, the text implies that entities will need to maintain evidence of investment dates, holding durations, proportions of qualifying investments (for proportional computations), registration/certification under SEBI/RBI frameworks, and the absence of borrowings for sovereign/pension funds where applicable. Specific forms, timelines or procedural steps are "Not stated in the document."

      Key Takeaways

      • SCHEDULE V provides targeted exclusions from total income for investment funds, business trusts (including REITs), venture capital vehicles and certain foreign public investment vehicles.
      • Exemptions are conditional: e.g., timing and minimum holding periods for specified persons, and carve-outs for income of the same nature as SPV interest/dividend or REIT rentals.
      • Important definitions and thresholds are supplied by cross-reference to other statutes and regulatory rules (SEBI, RBI, IFSC), making qualification dependent on compliance with those external regimes.
      • The Board is empowered to issue guidelines for Sl. No.7 with Central Government approval and parliamentary laying; such guidelines will be binding when issued.
      • There is an explicit non-eligibility rule where sovereign/pension funds have loans or borrowings for the purpose of making investments in India.
      • Several provisions require proportional computation when qualifying vehicles have less than 100% investment/lending in eligible entities; the detailed method is to be prescribed.
      • Procedural details (filing, certificates, timelines, documentary proof, rates) are generally not set out in this Schedule and are "Not stated in the document."

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE V - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF CERTAIN ELIGIBLE PERSONS INCLUDING INVESTMENT FUNDS, BUSINESS TRUSTS AND THEIR UNIT HOLDERS

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax