Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of 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