CBDT Contemplates If India Needs New Virtual Digital Assets Law

TheCryptoTimesPublished on 2025-08-18Last updated on 2025-08-18

India’s top tax authority, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), has begun extensive consultations with cryptocurrency exchanges and industry participants to assess if a new digital asset law is needed. 

As per a report from the Economic Times, the CBDT has asked crypto players if India requires a fresh law for Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs). And if a new law is needed, the CBDT also wants to know which regulator should oversee it. Options include SEBI, RBI, MeitY, or FIU-IND.

The agency is also probing how much Indian crypto trading has moved offshore, particularly to hubs like Dubai. It also wants to understand why traders are leaving India. The initiative indicates that the government might be rethinking its stringent approach to taxing and regulating cryptos. 

India Crypto Tax Concerns

At present, crypto gains face a steep 30% flat tax with no loss set-off, plus a 1% TDS on every trade. Industry players say this has crippled liquidity and pushed volumes abroad. The Indian government admitted it currently lacks a real-time system to track income from cryptocurrency transactions, even after collecting over ₹700 crore in taxes in two years.

CBDT is now asking whether this 1% TDS is too high, and what the ideal rate should be. Further, the agency is deliberating whether disparate TDS norms should be adopted for retail traders, institutions, and market makers.

The survey also addresses operational concerns, such as checking counterparties’ domicile, correctly valuing VDAs, and dealing with peer-to-peer transactions. CBDT has also asked whether Indian exchanges are ready to comply with the OECD’s global crypto reporting framework (CARF), designed to prevent tax evasion across borders.

Expert Opinions and Outlook

Interestingly, some Indian exchanges have started offering futures and options trading, where TDS is lower, but there’s still no legal clarity on derivatives, offshore transactions, or even the precise definition of “VDA.”

Purushottam Anand, Founder of crypto law firm Crypto Legal, said India will likely bring in a complete VDA regulation. He also stated that the government is doing a thorough examination of VDAs this year, based on global issues such as G20 papers and recent legislative studies. Anand stressed that India feels that any rule or ban will be most effective when implemented with strong international collaboration.

Experts believe this consultation could be the first step toward a comprehensive VDA law. According to legal experts, global consensus today is moving towards regulation, not bans. With advanced markets embracing crypto as a legitimate asset class, there’s hope that India may ease taxes and set clearer rules to retain traders.

Also Read: AKTU Becomes 1st Indian Uni to Use Blockchain for 50K Degrees



Related Reads

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit57m ago

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit57m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1h ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1h ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1h ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片