Section 115AD

Section 115AD — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 115AD, in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.

• Fidelity Rutland Square Trust II — an FPI may choose the set-off order between its section 115AD and section 111A short-term gains ITATHelps taxpayerNo later treatment found
  My foreign portfolio investor client has non-STT short-term gains taxed under section 115AD and STT-paid short-term gains taxed at the section 111A rate, plus an STT-paid short-term loss. The officer re-sequenced the set-off. Can he?
  No. The Tribunal held that section 70 prescribes no chronology for set-off of losses and that the provisions do not compel an assessee to set the STT-paid short-term loss off against the STT-paid short-term gain first, so the assessee was entitled to exercise the option most beneficial to it. The Assessing Officer was directed to accept the net short-term capital gains as offered in the return and to delete the additional demand.
• SC Lowy P I (LUX) v ACIT ITATHelps taxpayerUnder appeal
  The AO calls my Luxembourg fund a conduit and invokes the PPT. Is a TRC and some substance enough to answer that?
  Yes, on these facts, but not for the reason this entry previously gave. The Tribunal allowed the India-Luxembourg treaty benefits because the tax residency certificate was valid and unquestioned and the Assessing Officer brought no cogent material to show that the company was in substance a conduit - only views and presumptions. It applied the Delhi High Court's propositions on tax residency certificates, held that the burden of establishing that obtaining a benefit was one of the principal purposes lies on the revenue, and found that burden unmet on a record showing a Luxembourg company that filed and paid tax there, bore real operating costs and held 13.95 per cent of its portfolio in India.
• In re General Electric Pension Trust Advance RulingHelps departmentSuperseded by amendment
  We are a US pension trust, exempt from tax at home, investing a small part of our fund in Indian securities. Can we claim the India-US treaty, and are our gains business income?
  No on the treaty, and yes on business income - the trust lost. The Authority ruled that the profits arising to General Electric Pension Trust from the sale of its portfolio investments in India would be treated as its business income, given the continuous purchases and sales through Indian brokers. It then held that the trust was a resident of the United States for treaty purposes only so far as its income was subject to tax there; being tax-exempt, it was not a resident of a contracting State and could not claim the convention. The business income was therefore taxable in India under the Act. The ruling binds only that applicant.
• Statutory position — section 111A: short-term gains where STT is paid, and what happens where it is not CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  My client's short-term gains on shares are partly from on-market STT-paid sales and partly from an off-market transfer. Does the concessional rate cover both, and what is the rate now?
  Section 111A covers only a short-term capital asset that is an equity share, a unit of an equity oriented fund or a unit of a business trust where the sale transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax. Where STT is not chargeable — an off-market sale, unlisted shares, a transfer outside the exchange — section 111A simply does not apply and the short-term gain goes into total income at the assessee's ordinary rate. The concessional rate itself is fifteen per cent for a transfer before 23 July 2024 and twenty per cent for a transfer on or after that date.
• Statutory position — Chapter X-A applies only from AY 2018-19, and Rule 10U's three-crore threshold and the grandfathering of investments made before 1 April 2017 CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  The Assessing Officer says my client's 2015 restructuring is an impermissible avoidance arrangement. Can GAAR reach an arrangement entered into before it came into force, and is there a monetary floor below which it simply does not apply?
  Chapter X-A applies in respect of any assessment year beginning on or after 1 April 2018 — that is, from AY 2018-19 — under s.95(2). Rule 10U(2) then makes the Chapter apply to an arrangement irrespective of when it was entered into, so long as the tax benefit is obtained on or after 1 April 2017; but Rule 10U(1)(a) takes out any arrangement where the tax benefit in the relevant assessment year, in aggregate to all parties, does not exceed three crore rupees, and Rule 10U(1)(d) read with the exception in Rule 10U(2) takes out income from the transfer of investments made before 1 April 2017.
• Statutory position — Rule 10U: the exclusions a cross-border case must clear first — the Foreign Institutional Investor and offshore-derivative carve-outs, and how the three crore rupee tax benefit is actually computed CBDT Circulars & InstructionsCuts both ways
  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".

Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.