Before I argue the merits of a GAAR notice for a foreign investor, which exclusions in Rule 10U do I have to run, and how is the three crore rupee tax benefit figure arrived at?
Rule 10U(1) takes four classes of case outside Chapter X-A altogether. Clause (a) is the monetary floor: the Chapter does not apply to an arrangement where the tax benefit in the relevant assessment year arising "in aggregate, to all the parties to the arrangement" does not exceed three crore rupees. Clause (b) excludes a Foreign Institutional Investor that is an assessee under the Act, that "has not taken benefit of an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A", and that has invested in listed or unlisted securities in accordance with the SEBI (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995. Clause (c) excludes a non-resident in relation to an investment made by him "by way of offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, directly or indirectly, in a Foreign Institutional Investor". Clause (d) grandfathers income from the transfer of investments made before 1 April 2017. Rule 10U(3)(iv) then tells you how to quantify the tax benefit for the clause (a) threshold: for sub-clauses (a) to (e) of s.102(10) it is "the amount of tax", and for sub-clause (f), an increase in loss, it is "the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss referred to therein been the total income".
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) on 2018-04-01, reported as Rule 10U of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (heading "Chapter X-A not to apply in certain cases"), transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/rule-10u, which carries no "Year:" stamp but does carry dated amendment footnotes 54 and 55; sub-rules (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (3)(iv) corroborated against the text of the rule reproduced in The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and others v Tiger Global International II Holdings, 2026 INSC 60 (Supreme Court, 15 January 2026), at and around paragraphs 12.29 and 12.30. It bears on section Rule 10U, section Rule 10U(1), section Rule 10U(2), section Rule 10U(3), section 95, section 96, section 102, section 102(6), section 102(10), section 90, section 90A, section 115AD of the Income Tax Act 1961, in How Tax Law Is Read, Assessment & Scrutiny, Capital Gains and Residence & Treaty Benefit matters.
Rule 10U(1)(b) contains a trap that decides FII cases: the exclusion is available only to an FII that has NOT taken the benefit of a treaty. An FII that has claimed treaty relief has, by that act, stepped outside the carve-out and into Chapter X-A, where s.90(2A) then denies it the treaty override. That is a coherent scheme and it should be understood as a choice rather than an accident. Clause (c) is the companion: the participatory-note holder investing through an FII is excluded in relation to that investment, whether the route is an offshore derivative instrument "or otherwise", and whether the investment is direct or indirect. On the threshold, three points matter. First, the figure is a tax benefit, not a transaction value, and it is aggregated across ALL the parties to the arrangement for the relevant assessment year, so a structure that produces a small benefit for your client may still be inside the Chapter once the other parties are added in. Second, "party" is defined in s.102(6) to include a permanent establishment, which widens the aggregation. Third, the loss limb is the one people get wrong: an arrangement producing no tax saving at all but an increased loss is valued by notionally treating the increase in loss as total income and computing the tax on it. On grandfathering, Rule 10U(2) is the sting in the tail — it applies the Chapter "to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st day of April, 2017", carving out only income from the transfer of investments made before that date. An old structure is not immune; only pre-1 April 2017 investments, and only as to income from their transfer, are protected. Read the version that governs your year. The words of sub-rule (2) set out above are the sub-rule as substituted with effect from 31 March 2026; for every assessment year under the Income-tax Act, 1961 the sub-rule opened "Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-rule (1)" and contained no exception of its own, the carve-out for pre-1 April 2017 investments living in clause (1)(d) alone. The result is the same in substance, but if you are quoting the sub-rule in a reply to a notice, quote the text that was in force in the year.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Rule 10U, as transcribed from the departmental page, reads: "Chapter X-A not to apply in certain cases. 10U. (1) The provisions of Chapter X-A shall not apply to— (a) an arrangement where the tax benefit in the relevant assessment year arising, in aggregate, to all the parties to the arrangement does not exceed a sum of rupees three crore; (b) a Foreign Institutional Investor,— (i) who is an assessee under the Act; (ii) who has not taken benefit of an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A as the case may be; and (iii) who has invested in listed securities, or unlisted securities, with the prior permission of the competent authority, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995 and such other regulations as may be applicable, in relation to such investments; (c) a person, being a non-resident, in relation to investment made by him by way of offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, directly or indirectly, in a Foreign Institutional Investor; (d) any income accruing or arising to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or received or deemed to be received by, any person from transfer of such investments which were made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such person. (2) The provisions of Chapter X-A shall apply to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st day of April, 2017, except for that income which accrues of arises to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or is received or deemed to be received, by any person from transfer of such investments which were made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such person. (3) For the purposes of this rule,— (i) \"Foreign Institutional Investor\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 115AD; (ii) \"offshore derivative instrument\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995 issued under Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992); (iii) \"Securities and Exchange Board of India\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992); (iv) \"tax benefit\" as defined in clause (10) of section 102 and computed in accordance with Chapter X-A shall be with reference to— (a) sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the said clause, the amount of tax; and (b) sub-clause (f) of the said clause, the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss referred to therein been the total income." The page carries two amendment footnotes. The sub-rule (2) that stood until 31 March 2026, and which therefore governs every assessment year to which the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies, read: "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-rule (1), the provisions of Chapter X-A shall apply to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st day of April, 2017." The clause (1)(d) that stood until the same date read: "(d) any income accruing or arising to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or received or deemed to be received by, any person form transfer of investments made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such person." Both are reproduced from the amendment footnotes on the departmental page, which attribute the substitution to the IT (Tenth Amdt.) Rules, 2026, w.e.f. 31-3-2026, and the prior text to the IT (Sixteenth Amdt.) Rules, 2016, w.e.f. 22-6-2016.
Not a judgment. The statutory position is that Chapter X-A does not apply to an arrangement whose aggregate tax benefit to all the parties in the relevant assessment year does not exceed three crore rupees; nor to a Foreign Institutional Investor satisfying all three conditions in Rule 10U(1)(b), of which the second is that it has not taken the benefit of a section 90 or section 90A agreement; nor to a non-resident in relation to an investment made by him, directly or indirectly and whether by offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, in a Foreign Institutional Investor; nor to income from the transfer of investments made before 1 April 2017; that by Rule 10U(2) the Chapter otherwise applies to an arrangement irrespective of when it was entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained on or after 1 April 2017; and that by Rule 10U(3)(iv) the tax benefit is measured as the amount of tax for sub-clauses (a) to (e) of s.102(10), and for an increase in loss under sub-clause (f) as the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss been the total income.
Not a judgment; no judicial reasoning is stated for the rule itself. On its history the Supreme Court recorded at paragraph 12.30 of its judgment of 15 January 2026 that "Rule 10U(2) introduced a crucial distinction wherein an arrangement was not automatically grandfathered in its entirety", that the provisions of GAAR were to apply if the tax benefit was obtained on or after 1 April 2015 "initially, and later substituted to be effective from 01.04.2017", and that an assessee "simply cannot walk away by citing that the investments were made prior to 01.04.2017" where the arrangement has yielded a benefit above three crore rupees after that date.
(iv) "tax benefit" as defined in clause (10) of section 102 and computed in accordance with Chapter X-A shall be with reference to— (a) sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the said clause, the amount of tax; and (b) sub-clause (f) of the said clause, the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss referred to therein been the total income.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppRule 10U(1) takes four classes of case outside Chapter X-A altogether. Clause (a) is the monetary floor: the Chapter does not apply to an arrangement where the tax benefit in the relevant assessment year arising "in aggregate, to all the parties to the arrangement" does not exceed three crore rupees. Clause (b) excludes a Foreign Institutional Investor that is an assessee under the Act, that "has not taken benefit of an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A", and that has invested in listed or unlisted securities in accordance with the SEBI (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995. Clause (c) excludes a non-resident in relation to an investment made by him "by way of offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, directly or indirectly, in a Foreign Institutional Investor". Clause (d) grandfathers income from the transfer of investments made before 1 April 2017. Rule 10U(3)(iv) then tells you how to quantify the tax benefit for the clause (a) threshold: for sub-clauses (a) to (e) of s.102(10) it is "the amount of tax", and for sub-clause (f), an increase in loss, it is "the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss referred to therein been the total income". This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text) and bears on section Rule 10U, section Rule 10U(1), section Rule 10U(2), section Rule 10U(3), section 95, section 96, section 102, section 102(6), section 102(10), section 90, section 90A, section 115AD of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Rule 10U of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (heading "Chapter X-A not to apply in certain cases"), transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/rule-10u, which carries no "Year:" stamp but does carry dated amendment footnotes 54 and 55; sub-rules (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (3)(iv) corroborated against the text of the rule reproduced in The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and others v Tiger Global International II Holdings, 2026 INSC 60 (Supreme Court, 15 January 2026), at and around paragraphs 12.29 and 12.30. Rule 10U(1)(b) contains a trap that decides FII cases: the exclusion is available only to an FII that has NOT taken the benefit of a treaty. An FII that has claimed treaty relief has, by that act, stepped outside the carve-out and into Chapter X-A, where s.90(2A) then denies it the treaty override. That is a coherent scheme and it should be understood as a choice rather than an accident. Clause (c) is the companion: the participatory-note holder investing through an FII is excluded in relation to that investment, whether the route is an offshore derivative instrument "or otherwise", and whether the investment is direct or indirect. On the threshold, three points matter. First, the figure is a tax benefit, not a transaction value, and it is aggregated across ALL the parties to the arrangement for the relevant assessment year, so a structure that produces a small benefit for your client may still be inside the Chapter once the other parties are added in. Second, "party" is defined in s.102(6) to include a permanent establishment, which widens the aggregation. Third, the loss limb is the one people get wrong: an arrangement producing no tax saving at all but an increased loss is valued by notionally treating the increase in loss as total income and computing the tax on it. On grandfathering, Rule 10U(2) is the sting in the tail — it applies the Chapter "to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st day of April, 2017", carving out only income from the transfer of investments made before that date. An old structure is not immune; only pre-1 April 2017 investments, and only as to income from their transfer, are protected. Read the version that governs your year. The words of sub-rule (2) set out above are the sub-rule as substituted with effect from 31 March 2026; for every assessment year under the Income-tax Act, 1961 the sub-rule opened "Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-rule (1)" and contained no exception of its own, the carve-out for pre-1 April 2017 investments living in clause (1)(d) alone. The result is the same in substance, but if you are quoting the sub-rule in a reply to a notice, quote the text that was in force in the year. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Compute the aggregate tax benefit for every party to the arrangement for the relevant assessment year on the Rule 10U(3)(iv) basis, and put that computation on record before answering the merits. If it does not exceed three crore rupees, the Chapter cannot be applied and nothing else needs to be argued.
Rule 10U, as transcribed from the departmental page, reads: "Chapter X-A not to apply in certain cases. 10U. (1) The provisions of Chapter X-A shall not apply to— (a) an arrangement where the tax benefit in the relevant assessment year arising, in aggregate, to all the parties to the arrangement does not exceed a sum of rupees three crore; (b) a Foreign Institutional Investor,— (i) who is an assessee under the Act; (ii) who has not taken benefit of an agreement referred to in section 90 or section 90A as the case may be; and (iii) who has invested in listed securities, or unlisted securities, with the prior permission of the competent authority, in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995 and such other regulations as may be applicable, in relation to such investments; (c) a person, being a non-resident, in relation to investment made by him by way of offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, directly or indirectly, in a Foreign Institutional Investor; (d) any income accruing or arising to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or received or deemed to be received by, any person from transfer of such investments which were made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such person. (2) The provisions of Chapter X-A shall apply to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st day of April, 2017, except for that income which accrues of arises to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or is received or deemed to be received, by any person from transfer of such investments which were made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such person. (3) For the purposes of this rule,— (i) \"Foreign Institutional Investor\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Explanation to section 115AD; (ii) \"offshore derivative instrument\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995 issued under Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992); (iii) \"Securities and Exchange Board of India\" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 of 1992); (iv) \"tax benefit\" as defined in clause (10) of section 102 and computed in accordance with Chapter X-A shall be with reference to— (a) sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the said clause, the amount of tax; and (b) sub-clause (f) of the said clause, the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss referred to therein been the total income." The page carries two amendment footnotes. The sub-rule (2) that stood until 31 March 2026, and which therefore governs every assessment year to which the Income-tax Act, 1961 applies, read: "(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of clause (d) of sub-rule (1), the provisions of Chapter X-A shall apply to any arrangement, irrespective of the date on which it has been entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained from the arrangement on or after the 1st day of April, 2017." The clause (1)(d) that stood until the same date read: "(d) any income accruing or arising to, or deemed to accrue or arise to, or received or deemed to be received by, any person form transfer of investments made before the 1st day of April, 2017 by such person." Both are reproduced from the amendment footnotes on the departmental page, which attribute the substitution to the IT (Tenth Amdt.) Rules, 2026, w.e.f. 31-3-2026, and the prior text to the IT (Sixteenth Amdt.) Rules, 2016, w.e.f. 22-6-2016. The matter was decided on 2018-04-01 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Not applicable — statutory text). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. Not a judgment. The statutory position is that Chapter X-A does not apply to an arrangement whose aggregate tax benefit to all the parties in the relevant assessment year does not exceed three crore rupees; nor to a Foreign Institutional Investor satisfying all three conditions in Rule 10U(1)(b), of which the second is that it has not taken the benefit of a section 90 or section 90A agreement; nor to a non-resident in relation to an investment made by him, directly or indirectly and whether by offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, in a Foreign Institutional Investor; nor to income from the transfer of investments made before 1 April 2017; that by Rule 10U(2) the Chapter otherwise applies to an arrangement irrespective of when it was entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained on or after 1 April 2017; and that by Rule 10U(3)(iv) the tax benefit is measured as the amount of tax for sub-clauses (a) to (e) of s.102(10), and for an increase in loss under sub-clause (f) as the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss been the total income.
Not a judgment; no judicial reasoning is stated for the rule itself. On its history the Supreme Court recorded at paragraph 12.30 of its judgment of 15 January 2026 that "Rule 10U(2) introduced a crucial distinction wherein an arrangement was not automatically grandfathered in its entirety", that the provisions of GAAR were to apply if the tax benefit was obtained on or after 1 April 2015 "initially, and later substituted to be effective from 01.04.2017", and that an assessee "simply cannot walk away by citing that the investments were made prior to 01.04.2017" where the arrangement has yielded a benefit above three crore rupees after that date. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "(iv) "tax benefit" as defined in clause (10) of section 102 and computed in accordance with Chapter X-A shall be with reference to— (a) sub-clauses (a) to (e) of the said clause, the amount of tax; and (b) sub-clause (f) of the said clause, the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss referred to therein been the total income."
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 2018-04-01 and is reported as Rule 10U of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (heading "Chapter X-A not to apply in certain cases"), transcribed from incometaxindia.gov.in/w/rule-10u, which carries no "Year:" stamp but does carry dated amendment footnotes 54 and 55; sub-rules (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (3)(iv) corroborated against the text of the rule reproduced in The Authority for Advance Rulings (Income Tax) and others v Tiger Global International II Holdings, 2026 INSC 60 (Supreme Court, 15 January 2026), at and around paragraphs 12.29 and 12.30. Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section Rule 10U, section Rule 10U(1), section Rule 10U(2), section Rule 10U(3), section 95, section 96, section 102, section 102(6), section 102(10), section 90, section 90A, section 115AD, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It cuts both ways and is cited by both sides. Not a judgment. The statutory position is that Chapter X-A does not apply to an arrangement whose aggregate tax benefit to all the parties in the relevant assessment year does not exceed three crore rupees; nor to a Foreign Institutional Investor satisfying all three conditions in Rule 10U(1)(b), of which the second is that it has not taken the benefit of a section 90 or section 90A agreement; nor to a non-resident in relation to an investment made by him, directly or indirectly and whether by offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, in a Foreign Institutional Investor; nor to income from the transfer of investments made before 1 April 2017; that by Rule 10U(2) the Chapter otherwise applies to an arrangement irrespective of when it was entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained on or after 1 April 2017; and that by Rule 10U(3)(iv) the tax benefit is measured as the amount of tax for sub-clauses (a) to (e) of s.102(10), and for an increase in loss under sub-clause (f) as the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss been the total income. It arises in How Tax Law Is Read, Assessment & Scrutiny, Capital Gains and Residence & Treaty Benefit matters, on section Rule 10U, section Rule 10U(1), section Rule 10U(2), section Rule 10U(3), section 95, section 96, section 102, section 102(6), section 102(10), section 90, section 90A, section 115AD of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Not applicable — statutory text. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. For an FII, check first whether treaty benefit has been claimed for the year in question. If it has, Rule 10U(1)(b)(ii) is not satisfied and the exclusion is gone; if it has not, produce the return and the computation to prove it. For an FII, also produce the evidence that the investment was made in accordance with the SEBI (Foreign Institutional Investors) Regulations, 1995 — and, for unlisted securities, the prior permission of the competent authority, which Rule 10U(1)(b)(iii) requires in terms. For a participatory-note or similar holder, identify the investment as one made in a Foreign Institutional Investor and bring it within Rule 10U(1)(c); the words "or otherwise, directly or indirectly" are wide and should be used. For grandfathering, prove the DATE OF THE INVESTMENT, not the date of the arrangement, and prove that the income in question arises from the TRANSFER of that investment. Rule 10U(1)(d) and 10U(2) protect nothing else. Where the tax benefit consists of an increased loss, do the notional computation under Rule 10U(3)(iv)(b) yourself rather than leaving the officer to assert a figure.
Still good law. The text set out here is the current text, and it can now be dated. The departmental page carries no "Year:" stamp but does carry numbered amendment footnotes: footnote 54, against clause (1)(d), and footnote 55, against sub-rule (2), each read "Substituted by the IT (Tenth Amdt.) Rules, 2026, w.e.f. 31-3-2026", and each set out the immediately preceding text "as amended by the IT (Sixteenth Amdt.) Rules, 2016, w.e.f. 22-6-2016". That footnote is corroborated on an independent route: the Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on 15 January 2026, reproduces sub-rule (2) in exactly the pre-substitution words the footnote records. The practical consequence is important — for every assessment year governed by the Income-tax Act, 1961 it is the EARLIER text of sub-rule (2) and clause (1)(d) that applies, and the version set out in the facts took effect only on 31 March 2026. Sub-rules (1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(c) and (3)(iv) carry no amendment footnote and were read in identical terms in the Supreme Court's reproduction, so they stand as originally made. No check of judicial treatment beyond that judgment was made. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
This entry is confined to the exclusions in Rule 10U(1)(b), (c) and (d), to Rule 10U(2), and to the computation rule in Rule 10U(3)(iv). The three crore rupee threshold in Rule 10U(1)(a) and the 1 April 2017 grandfathering date are already the subject of a separate entry in this library, and are restated here only because the computation rule cannot be explained without them. DATING — AND A CORRECTION TO A NEGATIVE THIS PROJECT HAS CARRIED BEFORE. Departmental rule pages carry no "Year:" stamp, and this one does not; but it DOES carry numbered amendment footnotes, which is a route this project had not used on a rule page. Footnote 54 (marker against clause (1)(d)) and footnote 55 (marker against sub-rule (2)) each read "Substituted by the IT (Tenth Amdt.) Rules, 2026, w.e.f. 31-3-2026", and each reproduce the prior text "as amended by the IT (Sixteenth Amdt.) Rules, 2016, w.e.f. 22-6-2016". So the 1 April 2017 grandfathering date was put into clause (1)(d) and sub-rule (2) by the Income-tax (Sixteenth Amendment) Rules, 2016 with effect from 22 June 2016, and both provisions were substituted again with effect from 31 March 2026. The footnote is corroborated independently: the Supreme Court's judgment of 15 January 2026 reproduces sub-rule (2) in precisely the pre-substitution words the footnote sets out, which is what a judgment delivered before 31 March 2026 should do. Note that the departmental footnote prints the prior clause (1)(d) with "form" where "from" is plainly meant; that typographical error is the department's. The rule's own Part heading was returned by the departmental page as "DA.—Application of General Anti Avoidance Rule" but as "DD. Application of General Anti Avoidance Rule" in the copy reproduced in the Supreme Court's judgment in the Tiger Global appeal; I could not resolve that difference and the Part letter should not be relied on. On the history of Rule 10U(2), the Supreme Court records at paragraph 12.30 of that judgment that the operative date in the sub-rule was "initially" 1 April 2015 and was "later substituted to be effective from 01.04.2017", and at paragraph 12.29 that GAAR was "expressly excluded from applying to income arising from investments made before 30.08.2010, initially" and that "the Rules were notified with effect from 01.04.2017, and the cut-off date was accordingly amended" — that history is reported here as the Court stated it and was not independently verified against the notifications. `decided_on` is 2018-04-01, which is NOT the commencement of the rule: it is the first day of the first assessment year to which s.95(2) applies the Chapter that the rule qualifies. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Not a judgment. The statutory position is that Chapter X-A does not apply to an arrangement whose aggregate tax benefit to all the parties in the relevant assessment year does not exceed three crore rupees; nor to a Foreign Institutional Investor satisfying all three conditions in Rule 10U(1)(b), of which the second is that it has not taken the benefit of a section 90 or section 90A agreement; nor to a non-resident in relation to an investment made by him, directly or indirectly and whether by offshore derivative instruments or otherwise, in a Foreign Institutional Investor; nor to income from the transfer of investments made before 1 April 2017; that by Rule 10U(2) the Chapter otherwise applies to an arrangement irrespective of when it was entered into, in respect of the tax benefit obtained on or after 1 April 2017; and that by Rule 10U(3)(iv) the tax benefit is measured as the amount of tax for sub-clauses (a) to (e) of s.102(10), and for an increase in loss under sub-clause (f) as the tax that would have been chargeable had the increase in loss been the total income.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
I hold a Mauritius TRC. Can the department still deny me treaty relief on the capital gains?
Our Indian affiliate is paid at arm's length. Can more profit still be attributed to a PE?
The AO invoked GAAR even though a specific anti-avoidance section covers my transaction. Can he do that?
We paid for technical services but learnt nothing from them. Is it still fees for technical services?