VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawCBDT Circulars & Instructions › Statutory position — s.115UB(5) and (6) with Explanation 2: the AIF investor is taxed on income the fund never paid him, and is protected when it is finally paid
CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both wayss.115UBs.115UB(4)s.115UB(5)s.115UB(6)s.115UB(2)s.115Us.115U(4)s.115U(5)s.194LBBs.10(23FBA)s.10(23FBB)Rule 12CB

Statutory position — s.115UB(5) and (6) with Explanation 2: the AIF investor is taxed on income the fund never paid him, and is protected when it is finally paid

My client's Category II AIF has not distributed anything for two years, but the Form 64C shows income allocated to him and he is being asked to pay tax on it. Can he be taxed on money he has not received, and will he be taxed again when the fund finally pays it out?

My client's Category II AIF has not distributed anything for two years, but the Form 64C shows income allocated to him and he is being asked to pay tax on it. Can he be taxed on money he has not received, and will he be taxed again when the fund finally pays it out?

Yes to the first and no to the second. Section 115UB(6) provides that income accruing or arising to, or received by, the investment fund during a previous year which is not paid or credited to the unit holder shall — subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) — be deemed to have been credited to his account on the last day of the previous year, in the same proportion in which he would have been entitled to receive it had it been paid in that year. Explanation 2 then declares, for the removal of doubts, that income already included in his total income in a previous year on the footing that it accrued or arose in that year shall not be included again in the previous year in which the fund actually pays it to him. Sub-section (5) separately provides that Chapter XII-D and Chapter XII-E do not apply to income paid by an investment fund under the Chapter.

Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text), reported as Section 115UB sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) and Explanation 2 as printed on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-115ub, Year stamp 2026, and identically on incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-115ub-6, Year stamp 2016. It bears on section 115UB, section 115UB(4), section 115UB(5), section 115UB(6), section 115UB(2), section 115U, section 115U(4), section 115U(5), section 194LBB, section 10(23FBA), section 10(23FBB), section Rule 12CB of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Charitable Trusts & Exemption, Assessment & Scrutiny and Capital Gains Exemptions matters.

Still good law. The sub-sections were read on a departmental page of the Income-tax Act, 1961 that printed the section heading "Tax on income of investment fund and its unit holders" and carried a Year stamp of 2026, and again in identical words on the archived page stamped Year 2016, which shows the text unaltered across the section's life. Neither page prints a footnote list, so no commencement date is asserted. No judicial treatment of sub-section (6) or of Explanation 2 was searched for on this pass, so none is claimed.

Why it matters

This is the provision that produces the dry-tax problem in AIF investing, and it is worth stating plainly because a client will not otherwise believe it: he is taxed on his proportionate share of what the fund earned, in the year the fund earned it, whether or not a rupee reaches him. That is why the Form 64C statement under rule 12CB matters so much, and why an investor who ignores it because he received no distribution files a wrong return. Three details decide most of the arguments. First, the deeming is expressly "subject to the provisions of sub-section (2)" — the loss provision — so the accrual rule and the loss rule have to be read together rather than applied in sequence. Second, the deeming fixes both the date and the proportion: the last day of the previous year, and the proportion in which the unit holder would have been entitled to receive the income had it been paid in that year. It is the entitlement under the fund documents that governs, not any actual allocation the manager may make later. Third, Explanation 2 is the protection against the obvious double count, and it is drafted narrowly: it applies to income which "has been included in total income" of the unit holder in an earlier previous year on account of accrual. So the investor has to be able to show that it was in fact included — which means keeping the earlier Form 64C, the earlier return and the earlier computation, sometimes for years, and matching them against the distribution when it comes. There is a useful contrast with the older venture capital Chapter. Section 115U(5) makes the same deeming for a venture capital company or fund and section 115U Explanation 2 gives the same protection, but section 115U(5) is not made subject to any loss provision, and section 115U(4) bars Chapter XVII-B — withholding — altogether, whereas an investment fund inside section 115UB deducts under section 194LBB. Section 115UB(5) disapplies only Chapter XII-D and Chapter XII-E, not Chapter XVII-B.

Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.

Not yet CA-verified. This entry was found through the sources listed under the Sources tab, and the summary reflects what those sources say. Nobody has yet read the full judgment and signed it off. Check the source before relying on it.

Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.

Related

Other authorities on the same sections.