TKF Report Highlights Uncollected TDS in India from Offshore VDA Trading

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-01-13Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-13

Introduzione

A TKF Report titled "Taxation of Digital Assets in India" highlights significant uncollected TDS from offshore cryptocurrency exchange platforms, estimated at approximately ₹11,000 crore since July 2022. Of this, ₹4,877 crore pertains to the last year alone, indicating a major shift of Indian trading activity beyond the nation’s taxation framework. The Bharat Web3 Association shared the report, emphasizing that regulatory arbitrage and uneven enforcement are causing sustained revenue leakage. In contrast, the Indian government collected ₹158 crore in FY22-23, ₹180 crore in FY23-24, and around ₹450 crore in FY24-25 from domestic platforms. CoinDCX CEO Sumit Gupta previously suggested key policy changes, including reducing TDS to 0.01%, aligning capital gains tax with income slabs, and allowing loss offsetting to encourage onshore platform usage and ensure tax equity.

TKF Report, titled Taxation of Digital Assets in India, has highlighted that there is a significant amount of uncollected TDS from offshore exchange platforms. Bharat Web3 Association has further shed light by sharing the report with the community. Notably, this comes days after CoinDCX CEO Sumit Gupta listed three key changes that could help the country become a leader in the segment.

Key Points from TKF Report

According to the TKF Report, Taxation of Digital Assets in India, the uncollected TDS is approximately ₹11,000 crore. This is cumulative since July 2022 – that is when the tax was introduced for the crypto sphere in the country. Out of this amount, around ₹4,877 crore pertains to the last year alone.

Notably, the uncollected TDS mentioned is from offshore exchanges, which many community members have tagged as a possible revenue leak.

The government reportedly collected ₹158 crore in FY 22-23, within the first few months of the implementation of the tax. Tax collection increased to ₹180 crore in the next year, that is in FY 23-24. For FY 24-25, collections stood at around ₹450 crore as a result of global tailwind pushing the country’s crypto industry forward, according to the report.

Bharat Web3 Association Speaks

Bharat Web3 Association, an apex body for leading Web3 technology Indian companies, shared the report. It underlined that the uncollected TDS further indicates a major shift in Indian trading activity beyond the scope of the nation’s taxation and reporting framework.

The association further emphasized how regulatory arbitrage and uneven enforcement translated into sustained revenue leakage, a similar point later echoed by community members. Bharat Web3 Association has reinforced the need for a calibrated policy approach to make companies stronger, with a core focus on helping onshore platforms retain activities.

Sumit Gupta Suggests Key Changes

CoinDCX CEO Sumit Gupta had earlier suggested three key changes to reset India’s crypto policy. He suggested a standardized TDS of 0.01% instead of 1%, adding that a lower compliance cost would bring more users back to regulated platforms, including onshore ventures.

Sumit then suggested aligning the capital tax of 30% with income slabs, explaining that the current flat rate violated tax equity. He highlighted that progressive taxation would encourage legitimate wealth creation and signal fairness principles. Finally, CoinDCX CEO suggested allowing loss offsetting for crypto investors against other income.

Highlighted Crypto News Today:

World Liberty Financial Launches On-Chain Lending Market Built on Dolomite

TagsCryptoIndiaVirtual Digital Assets (VDA)

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the estimated amount of uncollected TDS from offshore VDA trading platforms in India, as highlighted by the TKF Report?

AThe TKF Report estimates the uncollected TDS to be approximately ₹11,000 crore cumulatively since July 2022.

QWhich Indian association shared the TKF report and what key concern did it highlight regarding the uncollected TDS?

AThe Bharat Web3 Association shared the report. It highlighted that the uncollected TDS indicates a major shift of Indian trading activity to platforms beyond the nation's taxation and reporting framework, leading to sustained revenue leakage.

QWhat were the three key policy changes suggested by CoinDCX CEO Sumit Gupta for India's crypto sector?

ASumit Gupta suggested: 1. Reducing the TDS rate to a standardized 0.01% from 1%. 2. Aligning the capital gains tax with income slabs instead of a flat 30%. 3. Allowing investors to offset crypto losses against other income.

QHow much TDS did the Indian government collect in the fiscal year 2023-24 according to the report?

AThe Indian government collected ₹180 crore in TDS in the fiscal year 2023-24.

QSince when has the 1% TDS on crypto transactions been in effect in India, as mentioned in the article?

AThe 1% TDS on crypto transactions was introduced in July 2022.

Letture associate

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit50 min fa

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit50 min fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片