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
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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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