VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawCBDT Circulars & Instructions › Statutory position — section 9A(4) and rule 10V: who counts as an eligible fund manager, and the minimum fee the fund must pay him
CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both wayss.9As.9A(3)s.9A(4)s.9A(9)Rule 10VRule 10VAs.92Es.11UB

Statutory position — section 9A(4) and rule 10V: who counts as an eligible fund manager, and the minimum fee the fund must pay him

I am setting up an India-based manager for an offshore fund. What does the manager himself have to satisfy, and is there a floor on the fee the fund must pay him?

I am setting up an India-based manager for an offshore fund. What does the manager himself have to satisfy, and is there a floor on the fee the fund must pay him?

Section 9A(4) defines the eligible fund manager as a person engaged in the activity of fund management who satisfies four conditions: he is not an employee of the fund or a connected person of the fund; he is registered as a fund manager or an investment advisor in accordance with the specified regulations; he is acting in the ordinary course of his business as a fund manager; and he, along with his connected persons, is not entitled, directly or indirectly, to more than twenty per cent of the profits accruing or arising to the fund from the transactions carried out by the fund through him. Separately, condition (m) of section 9A(3) requires the fund's remuneration to him to be not less than a prescribed amount, and rule 10V(12) prescribes that amount.

Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2025-04-01, reported as Income-tax Act 1961, s.9A(4) and s.9A(3)(m), as printed on the Income-tax Department's section page carrying the year stamp 2025; Income-tax Rules 1962, rule 10V, sub-rules (12) to (15), as printed on the Department's rule page (rule pages carry no year stamp). It bears on section 9A, section 9A(3), section 9A(4), section 9A(9), section Rule 10V, section Rule 10VA, section 92E, section 11UB of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Residence & Treaty Benefit and How Tax Law Is Read matters.

Still good law. Section 9A(4) was read on the Department's section page carrying the year stamp 2025, the highest year stamp located for this section; clause (m) of section 9A(3) was read a second time on the archived page carrying the year stamp 2024 (No. 1) and came back in identical words. Rule 10V was read in full on the Department's rule page; that page carries NO year stamp, so the rule could not be dated and I do not claim to have dated it, nor could I verify from it whether any later amendment to the rule exists. No judicial decision construing section 9A(4) or rule 10V was located: an indiankanoon search on 8 September 2026 for 'section 9A' with 'eligible fund manager' returned only the Rules and SEBI regulations pages and no judgment or Tribunal order. Section 9A(4), clauses (a) to (d), was re-read word-for-word on the indiankanoon bare-Act text of section 9A (doc 143797990) and came back identical, which is a route independent of the Department. Rule 10V(14) and rule 10V(15) were likewise confirmed word-for-word on the indiankanoon bare-rule text of rule 10V (doc 60297115), where they appear as sub-rules (11) and (12) of an earlier consolidation that runs only to sub-rule (12). It follows that the present sub-rules (12) and (13) — the remuneration formula and Form No. 3CEJA — are a later insertion with renumbering, and they could NOT be confirmed on any route other than the Department's own rule page. The internal references in sub-rule (12) (the SEBI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) Regulations 2019, and a fourth proviso keyed to the previous year beginning 1 April 2021 and applications made on or before 1 February 2021) place that insertion no earlier than 2019 and point to early 2021; that is a reading of the text as printed, not a dated notification.

Why it matters

The manager conditions are the ones a commercial deal walks into without noticing. Condition (d) of section 9A(4) is a carried-interest cap in substance: if the manager and his connected persons are entitled to more than twenty per cent of the profits the fund makes on transactions carried out through him, he is not an eligible fund manager and the safe harbour in section 9A(1) is gone for the fund. Rule 10V(15) softens this in one specific way — remuneration in the nature of a FIXED charge, not dependent on the income or profits derived by the fund, is not counted in those profits, provided condition (m) is satisfied and the fixed charge was agreed by the manager IN WRITING at the beginning of the relevant fund management activity. That written-at-the-outset requirement is easy to miss and impossible to cure later. On the fee floor, rule 10V(12) sets 0.10 per cent of assets under management for a fund that is a Category-I foreign portfolio investor of the descriptions listed there, and for other cases offers three alternatives: 0.30 per cent of assets under management; ten per cent of profits derived by the fund in excess of the specified hurdle rate, where the manager is entitled only to income- or profit-linked remuneration; or fifty per cent of the management fee reduced by operational expenses including distribution expenses, that third alternative applying only where the fund is also paying a management fee to another fund manager. Where the actual fee is lower than the figure so arrived at, the fund is not automatically out — the second proviso to rule 10V(12) lets it apply to the Board under rule 10VA for that lower amount to be approved as the amount of remuneration.

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.