Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

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

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Comparison of 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

Acts Income Tax