Executive Summary

The gift city vs mainland india fund debate has emerged as one of the most consequential structural decisions facing fund managers, treasury departments, and financial intermediaries in India as of 2026. Gujarat International Finance Tec-City (GIFT City), located in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, hosts India’s sole International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) and operates under a distinctive regulatory and fiscal architecture that differs materially from the mainland Indian framework. The International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA), established under the IFSCA Act 2019, functions as the unified regulator for all financial services conducted within the IFSC, consolidating oversight that on the mainland would be distributed across the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).

This article provides a structured comparative analysis of the key dimensions — taxation, currency regime, regulatory framework, eligible investor base, listing infrastructure, and operational costs — that should inform the domicile decision for funds and treasury structures. The analysis is grounded in the statutory framework as it stands in June 2026, including the Income Tax Act 1961, the Foreign Exchange Management Act 1999 (FEMA), IFSCA (Fund Management) Regulations 2022, and applicable CBDT notifications. The article is strictly educational and does not constitute legal or financial advice.

Statutory Framework

The IFSCA Act 2019 and the GIFT City IFSC

The IFSCA Act 2019 established the International Financial Services Centres Authority as a statutory body with jurisdiction over all financial products, financial services, and financial institutions operating within an IFSC. Prior to the enactment of the IFSCA Act, entities in GIFT City operated under the concurrent jurisdiction of multiple regulators — SEBI for capital markets, RBI for banking and forex, and IRDAI for insurance — which created jurisdictional ambiguity. The IFSCA Act resolved this by vesting consolidated regulatory authority in a single body, making GIFT City a genuine single-window regulatory jurisdiction.

The IFSC is a notified zone under Section 2(q) of FEMA 1999, and the Foreign Exchange Management (International Financial Services Centre) Regulations 2015 (as amended) govern foreign exchange transactions within the IFSC. The fundamental premise is that for FEMA purposes, an IFSC unit is treated as a person resident outside India, enabling it to transact in foreign currencies without the exchange control restrictions that apply to mainland entities.

IFSCA (Fund Management) Regulations 2022

The IFSCA (Fund Management) Regulations 2022 (FMR 2022) govern the registration, operation, and winding up of fund management entities (FMEs) and funds within the GIFT City IFSC. The FMR 2022 establishes three principal categories of funds: Venture Capital Schemes, Restricted Schemes (analogous to Category I and II AIFs on the mainland), and Retail Schemes. Registration requirements, minimum corpus thresholds, and eligible investor criteria are set out in the FMR 2022 and differ in significant respects from the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations 2012 that govern mainland AIFs.

Under the FMR 2022, FMEs are permitted to manage funds that primarily invest in assets outside India, as well as certain domestic Indian assets through specified routes. The regulations permit a fund established in the IFSC to be structured as a company, limited liability partnership, trust, or contractual arrangement, offering structural flexibility that exceeds what is available to mainland AIFs which are predominantly trust-based.

Taxation: Section 80LA of the Income Tax Act 1961

The most significant fiscal incentive for IFSC entities is the deduction available under Section 80LA of the Income Tax Act 1961. An IFSC unit is eligible to claim a deduction of 100 percent of its income from specified activities for any ten consecutive years within the first fifteen years of commencement of operations. The qualifying income encompasses income from banking, insurance, fund management, and specified financial services conducted from the IFSC. It is important to note that the deduction applies to income arising from operations within the IFSC and is subject to conditions including filing of a return of income and obtaining a report from a chartered accountant.

Beyond Section 80LA, the fiscal architecture for IFSC entities includes: exemption from Securities Transaction Tax (STT) and Commodities Transaction Tax (CTT) on transactions on IFSC exchanges; exemption from Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) (now subsumed into the dividend income regime post the Finance Act 2020, but the IFSC regime provides for specific carve-outs); favourable treatment of capital gains arising from transfer of securities listed on IFSC exchanges to non-residents under Section 47(viiab) of the Income Tax Act; and a reduced withholding tax rate of 4 percent (under Section 194LC and 194LD in applicable contexts) on interest income paid by IFSC units to non-residents.

Foreign Exchange and Currency Regime

FEMA 1999 and the FEMA (IFSC) Regulations establish the operative currency framework. Transactions within the IFSC are denominated in foreign currencies — principally the United States Dollar — rather than in Indian Rupees. An IFSC unit is permitted to open and maintain accounts in foreign currency with banks operating in the IFSC. The notional treatment of IFSC units as non-residents under FEMA means that capital flows between an IFSC unit and overseas counterparties are largely free of exchange control approvals that would otherwise be required under the Liberalised Remittance Scheme or the External Commercial Borrowing framework.

Mainland Indian entities, by contrast, operate in Indian Rupees and are subject to the full ambit of FEMA capital account controls, RBI approval requirements for certain transactions, and the hedging obligations that accompany foreign currency exposures.

Procedural Landscape

Comparative Table: GIFT City IFSC vs Mainland India — Fund and Treasury Domicile

Registration Process for an FME in GIFT City IFSC

The process for establishing a Fund Management Entity in the GIFT City IFSC under the FMR 2022 involves the following sequential steps.

First, the applicant entity must be incorporated or registered in the IFSC — this may be a company incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 with a registered office in the IFSC, an LLP formed under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008, or a trust constituted under applicable law. Second, the applicant submits an application for registration as a Fund Management Entity to the IFSCA in the prescribed form, along with prescribed fees, a business plan, details of key managerial personnel, and disclosures relating to the principal shareholders. Third, the IFSCA reviews the application, may seek clarifications, and upon satisfaction grants a Certificate of Registration in the applicable category (Retail FME, Restricted FME, or Venture Capital FME). Fourth, the registered FME must appoint a compliance officer, a principal officer with specified qualifications, and establish risk management and compliance frameworks. Fifth, for each fund to be launched, a scheme document (private placement memorandum or scheme information document) is filed with the IFSCA, and the fund is constituted in accordance with the structural requirements of the FMR 2022.

Treasury Domicile Considerations

For corporate treasury operations, the GIFT City IFSC permits the establishment of IFSC Banking Units (IBUs) by Indian and foreign banks. An IBU is a branch of a bank operating within the IFSC and is treated as a foreign branch for FEMA purposes. Corporates with significant foreign currency borrowings, trade finance requirements, or multi-currency treasury operations may find that housing treasury activities through an IFSC-domiciled structure — either through a wholly-owned subsidiary or through IFSC-eligible instruments — reduces FEMA compliance burdens and provides access to competitive international interest rates. However, the inability of IFSC units to directly serve Indian residents in many product categories means that a hybrid structure maintaining both mainland and IFSC entities is common in practice.

Key Judicial Precedents

Indian courts have not, as of June 2026, produced a definitive body of jurisprudence specifically on GIFT City IFSC fund structures, reflecting the relative novelty of the framework. However, several precedential principles from the Supreme Court of India bear on the interpretation of IFSC-related provisions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vodafone International Holdings BV (2012) 6 SCC 613 established the primacy of substance and form in international tax structuring and the importance of examining the true character of transactions. While the case predates the IFSC framework, its analytical approach to treaty and statutory interpretation remains relevant to IFSC entities relying on beneficial tax provisions: the court emphasised that legitimate structuring aimed at tax efficiency within statutory parameters is permissible, but the substance of the arrangement must match its form.

On the interpretation of Section 80LA, the Madras High Court in CIT v. Sak Soft Ltd (2009) 180 Taxman 89 considered the conditions for claiming special economic zone deductions (under the predecessor SEZ framework) and affirmed that the deduction is available provided the statutory conditions are strictly complied with. The principle of strict but not pedantic compliance with tax incentive provisions in SEZ/IFSC contexts has been applied in subsequent ITAT orders.

Regarding the FEMA treatment of IFSC units, the Reserve Bank of India’s operational guidelines and IFSCA circulars constitute the primary quasi-regulatory instruments, and there are no Supreme Court decisions specifically addressing the non-resident characterisation of IFSC units under FEMA. The legal framework has largely operated within the administrative domain.

On the question of whether SEBI regulations apply to IFSC entities, the jurisdictional delineation established by the IFSCA Act 2019 — specifically Section 13, which gives IFSCA primacy over financial services in IFSCs — has been consistently applied at the administrative level, with SEBI formally recognising IFSCA’s exclusive jurisdiction over IFSC fund managers.

Conclusion

The gift city vs mainland india fund domicile decision in 2026 involves a nuanced balancing of significant fiscal advantages against structural constraints. The GIFT City IFSC offers a compelling proposition for fund managers and treasury units targeting non-resident capital: a unified regulatory framework under IFSCA, a 100 percent income tax deduction under Section 80LA for ten of the first fifteen years of operation, exemption from STT/CTT, favourable capital gains treatment for non-residents on IFSC exchange-listed securities, and full foreign currency operations outside the domestic FEMA capital account controls.

The mainland India framework, by contrast, offers access to resident Indian investors, an established infrastructure and service provider ecosystem, and regulatory familiarity. For fund managers whose target investor base includes Indian resident HNIs, family offices, or domestic institutions, a mainland AIF registration under SEBI regulations remains the appropriate structure.

In practice, the most sophisticated fund architectures in 2026 employ parallel structures — an IFSC-domiciled FME or fund for international capital, and a SEBI-registered AIF on the mainland for domestic capital — with appropriate ring-fencing to ensure regulatory compliance in each jurisdiction. The IFSCA has signalled a continued legislative and regulatory push to expand the scope of permissible activities within the IFSC, and the framework is expected to evolve further.

Practitioners and fund managers navigating the GIFT City vs mainland India domicile question should undertake detailed due diligence across the regulatory, tax, and investor relations dimensions, taking particular care to assess whether the investor base sought is eligible to invest in an IFSC-domiciled fund and whether the substance requirements for Section 80LA claims will be satisfied.

The post GIFT City vs Mainland India in 2026: Where Should Your Fund or Treasury Be Domiciled? appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.