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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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