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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 VI "INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF CERTAIN ELIGIBLE PERSONS IN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CENTRE OR HAVING INCOME THEREFROM" 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 VI - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF CERTAIN ELIGIBLE PERSONS IN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CENTRE OR HAVING INCOME THEREFROM

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Schedule VI in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It lists categories of income not to be included in total income of certain eligible persons connected with International Financial Services Centres (IFSCs). It matters to non-residents, IFSC units, specified funds, offshore banking units, portfolio managers and investors in such funds. 

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Schedule VI is presented "See section 11" and is annexed to the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). The Schedule identifies income heads and categories of eligible persons whose specified incomes "shall not be included" in total income, subject to conditions in Column D and definitions in accompanying Notes. The Schedule addresses income relating to transfers on recognised stock exchanges in IFSCs, transfers of securities, income from securitisation trusts, derivative transactions with IFSC participants, royalty/interest on lease of aircraft/ship, portfolio management receipts, capital gains on shares of domestic companies with IFSC units, specified fund returns, dividend receipts from IFSC units engaged in leasing, and interest payable by IFSC units. Definitions and clarificatory notes appear as Note 1 through Note 7 and specify terms such as "convertible foreign exchange," "investment division of offshore banking unit," "manager," "permanent establishment," "securities," "securitisation trust," "specified fund," "sponsor," "trust," and "units." The Schedule incorporates cross-references to other statutes and regulations including the Reserve Bank of India, Securities and Exchange Board of India Regulations, the International Financial Services Centres Authority Acts/Regulations and the Special Economic Zones Act.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The Schedule is a table of 12 distinct items describing income types that are excluded from total income of defined eligible persons. Each row sets out (A) a description of income; (B) the eligible person; and (D) conditions for the exclusion. Core items include capital gains on transfers u/s 70(1)(r) on recognised IFSC exchanges (Sl.1), transfers of securities excluding shares of resident companies (Sl.2), income from non-resident issued securities (Sl.3), securitisation trust income (Sl.4), NDFs/ODIs/OTC derivatives transfers or distributions (Sl.5), royalty/interest on aircraft/ship leases (Sl.6), income from portfolios managed in IFSC contexts (Sl.7), capital gains on domestic company equity where the domestic company is an IFSC unit (Sl.8), income from specified funds (Sl.9), capital gains on transfer of shares of Indian resident companies linked to relocation to a resultant fund (Sl.10), dividends received by IFSC units engaged in leasing (Sl.11), and interest payable by IFSC units for borrowings on/after 1 September 2019 (Sl.12).

      Interpretation

      The Schedule operates as a negative inclusion clause-income of specified description shall not be included in total income when the conditions are satisfied. Legislative intent, as evidenced by cross-references and delegated prescription language, is to create tax neutrality or favourable tax treatment for financial activities routed through IFSCs and for specified funds and their non-resident unit-holders, subject to regulatory/formal conditions to prevent abuse. The repeated use of delegated-law phrasing ("as prescribed") indicates Parliament's intent to allow Central Government/Regulator-level granular conditions and computations to be specified by rules/regulations.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs: Many exclusions are conditional-e.g., Sl.1 requires consideration in convertible foreign exchange and that exemption be only to extent attributable to units held by non-residents or investment divisions of offshore banking units. Sl.3 requires that the income otherwise does not accrue or arise in India. Sl.6 requires that the paying IFSC unit has commenced operations on or before 31 March 2030. Sl.8 confines the capital gains exclusion to specified 10-year windows from commencement of operations (or from 1 April 2023 where applicable). Sl.10 requires transfer to a resultant fund via relocation and restricts the benefit to the extent attributable to units held by non-residents. Several notes set out detailed definitional provisos; for instance, "specified fund" requires Category III AIF registration or IFSC fund regulation and unit-holding restrictions (allowing a sponsor/manager unit and limited resident holdings up to 5% subject to conditions).

      Illustrations

      • Fund A, a trust in an IFSC with all units held by non-residents, sells securities on a recognised IFSC exchange and receives convertible foreign exchange. The capital gains on the transfer may be excluded from total income of the specified fund subject to the computation rules (Not stated in the document: precise computation formula).
      • Non-resident investor receives distribution from an offshore derivative instrument entered into with an offshore banking unit in an IFSC. If the contract is with an offshore banking unit or an FPI unit of IFSC and conditions as prescribed are met, the income may be excluded from the non-resident's total income.
      • A domestic company that is an IFSC unit engaged primarily in aircraft leasing commences operations on 1 April 2024. Capital gains arising on transfer of its equity in a tax year within ten tax years may be excluded for an eligible non-resident or IFSC unit purchaser, subject to the stated conditions.

      Interplay

      The Schedule expressly references several external statutes and regulatory instruments: the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for convertible foreign exchange), SEBI AIF Regulations, 2012, SEBI FPI Regulations, 2019, IFSC Authority (Fund Management) Regulations, 2022, IFSC Authority (Capital Market Intermediaries) Regulations, 2021, Special Economic Zones Act (for definition of Unit), and domestic Income-tax Act sections (section 70(1)(r), section 70(2), section 173(c), section 221(6)(d)). The Schedule anticipates delegated rules for computation and qualification ("as prescribed"), indicating reliance on subsequent notifications/circulars to operationalise conditions and valuation/computation methodologies. Specific cross-references (e.g., to section 147 for IFSC units) are used to tie tax treatment to statutory characterisation of IFSC entities.

      Differences Between Documents

      • (Sl. No. 9) - Treatment of income from a specified fund or on transfer of units: Document 1 (Schedule VI of Income-tax Act, 2025) explicitly records the entry in Column D as "Nil." Document 2 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) leaves Column D blank (non-filled).
        • Practical impact: The Act version removes doubt by expressly providing nil conditions for the eligible person, which clarifies that no further conditions are required for that entry; the Bill's version could have generated uncertainty on whether any qualifying conditions applied.
      • Drafting and formulation differences - use of legislative phrasing: Document 1 consistently uses "as may be prescribed" in several conditions (e.g., Sl. No.1(c) "shall be computed in such manner as may be prescribed"), whereas Document 2 often uses the shorter "as prescribed" or "as notified" in similar places.
        • Practical impact: The Act version's "as may be prescribed" is the conventional indicative of delegated legislation; the Bill's shorter phrasing is substantively similar but the Act wording aligns with settled legislative drafting norms and can be interpreted as a clearer delegation to rulemaking authorities.
      • Definitions structure for "specified fund" (Note 1(g)): There are re-arrangements and slight reformulations. Document 2 presents sub-clauses (A) and (B) and then (C) and (D) (with (C) stating location and (D) the unit-holding exceptions). Document 1 embeds the location requirement as part of the initial description ("a fund ... located in International Financial Services Centres") and then sets out regulatory regimes (I) and (II) and other descriptive elements.
        • Practical impact: The Act text (Document 1) is more tightly structured to associate regulatory regime and location in a single sentence which aids interpretation that location in an IFSC is an essential attribute; the Bill's layout might have been read as fragmented and therefore more ambiguous regarding whether regulation or location were independent requirements.
      • Specific phrase differences in examples and notes: e.g., Document 2 uses "monies" in Note to Sl. No. 12 whereas Document 1 uses "moneys" (spelling variation); Document 1 cites the International Financial Services Centres Authority regulations (with years) similarly to Document 2 but sometimes presents the regulatory citation with slightly different punctuation and parenthetical years.
        • Practical impact: These are drafting-level differences with minimal substantive effect but the Act's editorial consistency reduces risk of citation ambiguity.
      • Scope of some clauses (Sl. No. 5 and related notes): Document 1 expressly includes "over-the-counter derivatives" in the heading of clause 5(b) and in certain cross references, and clarifies that qualifying counterparty may be "an offshore banking unit of an International Financial Services Centre as referred to in section 147 or any Foreign Portfolio Investor being a unit of an International Financial Services Centre." Document 2 contains a similar formulation but with slightly different punctuation and omission of the phrase "as referred to in section 147" in one place.
        • Practical impact: Document 1's explicit cross-reference to section 147 and consistent phraseology provides stronger statutory linkage to IFSC units, reducing interpretive friction when applying provisions to offshore banking units and FPIs.
      • Computational/technical wording: Document 1 uses "shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Notes below the said Table" and similar phrasing; Document 2 has near identical phrasing but differs in capitalization and small syntactic points.
        • Practical impact: No substantive difference; primarily editorial and drafting refinement in the Act.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers and fund managers must ensure strict compliance with the unit-holding criteria for "specified funds" (non-resident majority with narrow resident exceptions) and with commencement-of-operations timelines (notably 31 March 2030). Failure to meet conditions will negate the exclusion. Reliance on delegated rules is necessary for computation-non-availability of notified rules would create compliance risk.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the need to maintain documentary evidence of (i) convertible foreign exchange receipt, (ii) unit-holding registers showing resident/non-resident status and percentages, (iii) documentation of transfers on recognised IFSC stock exchanges, (iv) contracts with offshore banking units/FPIs for derivative transactions, (v) dates of commencement of operations for IFSC units, and (vi) particulars of relocation transfers between original and resultant funds. The Schedule itself does not prescribe specific documents-administrative rules likely will.

      Key Takeaways

      • Schedule VI lists discrete income categories excluded from total income for specified IFSC-related actors, subject to conditions and definitions.
      • The exclusions primarily benefit non-residents, IFSC units, specified funds and their non-resident unit-holders to foster IFSC financial activity.
      • Many exclusions are conditional (convertible foreign exchange, unit-holding restrictions, commencement dates, 10-year windows), making eligibility fact-sensitive.
      • The Schedule relies on external regulations and delegated "prescribed" rules for computation and detailed conditions; absence of those rules may impede operational application.
      • Robust records proving non-resident status of unit-holders, transactional currency, dates of commencement and contractual counterparties will be central to claiming the exclusions.
      • Some drafting ambiguities in the Bill may have been clarified in subsequent Act drafting (e.g., explicit "Nil." for Sl.9 in the Act), underscoring the importance of checking final enacted text and notifications.

      Full Text:

      SCHEDULE VI - INCOME NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN TOTAL INCOME OF CERTAIN ELIGIBLE PERSONS IN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES CENTRE OR HAVING INCOME THEREFROM

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax