India's Controversial Crypto Tax Should Be Cut After Failing to Achieve Aims, Think Tank Urges

CoinDeskPolicyPublished on 2023-11-08Last updated on 2023-11-09

Abstract

The government lost $420 million in potential revenue and failed to improve transparency because the tax regime prompted as many as 5 million crypto users to shift transaction...

  • India's controversial 1% tax deducted at source (TDS) crypto tax policy needs to be lowered to 0.01%, a technology think tank has proposed based on a new study.
  • India introduced a 30% tax on crypto profits and the 1% TDS on all transactions in July, 2022, resulting in traffic taking a nosedive and exchanges going into survival mode.

India's most controversial crypto policy, a 1% transaction tax deducted at source, needs to be lowered to 0.01% to help the government achieve its aims of boosting revenue and improving transparency, a New Delhi-based technology policy think tank said in a new study.

The tax, a form of income tax known as TDS, has prompted as many as 5 million crypto traders to move their transactions offshore, and has cost the government a potential $420 million in revenue since it was introduced in July, 2022, according to the study by the Esya Centre.

The findings in the "Impact Assessment of Tax Deducted at Source on the Indian Virtual Digital Asset Market" go one step further than the group's previous report, which revealed Indians moved more than $3.8 billion in trading volume from local to international crypto exchanges after the controversial crypto rules were announced. They show that, at least in part, the tax failed to achieve one of its stated aims: taxing people who are earning profits.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

"While the VDA market in India is burgeoning, the benefits of the same are being reaped by offshore exchanges," said Vikash Gautam, the report's author, referring to virtual digital assets. "Data shows that two likely policy objectives of the tax – to curb speculation and create transparency around transactions – have not been achieved."

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government announced a 30% tax on crypto profits and the 1% TDS on all transactions in February, 2022. At the time, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said the intention behind the TDS, the more controversial of the levies, was to increase traceability in India’s crypto ecosystem. Domestic and international participants warned it could kill the industry, and Indian crypto traffic nosedived in the months following its implementation, forcing almost all major exchanges into survival mode.

A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Representatives of the domestic industry have pleaded with the authorities on numerous occasions to lower the taxes. In addition to tracing transactions, the intention behind TDS was to discourage "speculative activity," according to the study, which analyzed transaction volumes from 13,000 peer-to-peer (P2P) traders and surveyed crypto exchange executives.

The Finance Ministry had not responded to a CoinDesk request for comment on the study by publication time.

The study also urged the government to clarify the applicability of TDS to offshore platforms.

"It just isn't enforceable, as per stakeholders," Gautam said in an interview. "It is possible to be done with international cooperation, but we do understand it is a long process. Some of the other countries have some arrangements with international exchanges to track that."

Edited by Sheldon Reback.

Related Reads

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit28m ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit28m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手28m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手28m ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit2h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit2h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片