All Courses are free for limited time.
NISM Professor

Minimum Alternate Tax

Also written MAT · Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT)

A floor tax on a company's book profits under Section 115JB, payable when it exceeds tax computed the normal way — which catches corporate investors receiving Category III AIF distributions.

In plain language

A company can be highly profitable in its accounts and pay almost no tax, because the Income Tax Act allows deductions and exemptions the accountant does not. MAT exists to stop that.

It works as a floor. Compute tax the normal way. Compute it again as a percentage of book profits. Pay whichever is higher.

For Series XIX-B the relevance is one step removed: the Category III AIF itself is taxed at MMR, but corporate beneficiaries of the fund are subject to Section 115JB on the distributions they receive. A corporate investor can therefore pay an additional layer of tax on money the fund has already been taxed on.

How it works

Two rates matter in this paper.

The general rate is 18.5% of book profits, plus applicable surcharge and health and education cess. A corporate beneficiary is liable for MAT where tax at 18.5% of book profits exceeds the tax computed under the ordinary provisions of the Act.

For a unit of a Category III AIF located in an IFSC, the rate is 9% — half the general rate — provided the unit derives its income solely in convertible foreign exchange. That halving sits alongside the other IFSC concessions: a 100% deduction from gross total income under Section 80LA for any 10 consecutive years out of 15, beginning with the year the fund obtained permission to operate; exemption from STT on transactions on an IFSC exchange; and, under the amendment to Section 115JEE, outright exemption from Alternate Minimum Tax for Category III AIFs in an IFSC organised as trusts or LLPs.

Note the pair carefully. MAT applies to companies under 115JB. AMT applies to non-corporate assessees, and it is AMT that the IFSC exemption removes.

The formula

MAT liability = Book profits × 18.5%    (plus surcharge and cess)
                → payable only if greater than tax under the normal provisions

IFSC unit of a Category III AIF, income solely in convertible foreign exchange:
MAT liability = Book profits × 9%

A worked example

A domestic company holds units in a Category III AIF. For the year its accounts show book profits of Rs 40 crore, while tax computed under the normal provisions — after depreciation allowances, set-offs and exempt income — comes to Rs 5.20 crore.

Normal computation                        Rs 5,20,00,000
MAT at 18.5% × Rs 40 crore                Rs 7,40,00,000
                                          ---------------
Higher of the two → MAT applies           Rs 7,40,00,000
Additional tax caused by 115JB            Rs 2,20,00,000

Add surcharge at 7% (total income above Rs 1 crore but not above Rs 10 crore) and cess at 4%:

MAT                    Rs 7,40,00,000
Surcharge  7%          Rs   51,80,000
                       --------------
                       Rs 7,91,80,000
Cess       4%          Rs   31,67,200
                       --------------
Total                  Rs 8,23,47,200

Now move the fund to an IFSC. The same book profits, in a unit deriving income solely in convertible foreign exchange:

MAT at 9% × Rs 40 crore = Rs 3,60,00,000

Below the Rs 5.20 crore normal computation, so MAT does not bite at all — the normal figure is paid. The jurisdiction choice is worth Rs 2.20 crore of tax on Rs 40 crore of book profits, before Section 80LA's 100% deduction is even considered.

Why NISM asks about it

Chapter 9 (Taxation) raises MAT twice: once at section 9.5, on distributions and redemptions, where corporate beneficiaries are flagged as subject to Section 115JB; and again at section 9.7, on Category III AIFs in an IFSC, where the 9% concessional rate sits in the list of IFSC benefits alongside Section 80LA and the STT exemption. Questions are usually recognition questions — which rate applies to an IFSC unit, which assessees MAT reaches, which statute exempts IFSC trusts and LLPs from AMT (Section 115JEE) rather than MAT.

Common exam traps

  • The rate depends on which paper you are sitting, and the workbooks disagree. This page is shared by several series, so check yours: Series XIX-B states 18.5%, XV and XIX-C state 15%, and XIX-D and XIX-E state 14% (Finance Act 2026, with effect from 1 April 2026). The statutory rate under section 115JB was cut to 15% in 2019 and revised again since. The paper marks its own workbook — answer the figure your syllabus states, and do not carry a rate across from another series.
  • MAT is not a tax on the AIF. The Category III AIF pays at MMR; MAT reaches the corporate beneficiary on what it receives.
  • MAT ≠ AMT. MAT (115JB) applies to companies; Alternate Minimum Tax applies to non-corporates, and it is AMT that Section 115JEE exempts for IFSC Category III AIFs organised as trusts or LLPs.
  • The 9% IFSC rate is conditional on the unit deriving its income solely in convertible foreign exchange. Mixed-currency income does not qualify.
  • MAT is a floor, not an addition. You pay the higher of the two computations, not both.
  • Book profits are not taxable income. MAT deliberately starts from the accounts, which is the whole point of the section.

Check yourself

  1. 1.Minimum Alternate Tax applies to a unit of a Category III AIF located in an IFSC, deriving income solely in convertible foreign exchange, at:

    1. a)18.5 per cent
    2. b)15 per cent
    3. c)9 per cent
    4. d)nil, in all cases
    Show the answer

    Answer: (c) 9 per cent

    MAT is applicable at the rate of 9 per cent, as opposed to the general rate of 18.5 per cent, in case of units of a Category III AIF located in an IFSC, deriving its income solely in convertible foreign exchange. Option (d) overstates the relief — though note the separate rule that under Section 115JEE, IFSC Category III AIFs organised as Trusts or LLPs have been exempted from the applicability of Alternate Minimum Tax provisions, which is a different levy from MAT on companies.

  2. 2.Under CBDT Circular 6/2016, a Category III AIF that elects to treat gains on listed shares held for more than 12 months as capital gains:

    1. a)may change its election freely in any later assessment year
    2. b)is bound to treat all such income as capital gains in subsequent assessment years
    3. c)must also treat gains on shares held for less than 12 months as capital gains
    4. d)loses the right to treat any securities as stock-in-trade in future
    Show the answer

    Answer: (b) is bound to treat all such income as capital gains in subsequent assessment years

    The circular states that where the fund opts to treat income arising from such transfer as Capital Gains, the same shall not be put to dispute by the Assessing Officer. However, once this option is taken by the Category III AIF in a particular assessment year, the fund shall be bound to treat all such income, in subsequent assessment years, as income under Capital Gains. The election is therefore a one-way door. Option (c) overstates it — the protection extends only to shares held for more than 12 months, and treatment of shorter holdings remains among the matters the workbook says still need clarification.

  3. 3.SEBI introduced the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations on 21 May 2012. True or false?

    1. a)True
    2. b)False
    Show the answer

    Answer: (a) True

    (This is a sample question from the NISM workbook.)

    "The Hedge Fund industry was AT A NASCENT STAGE UNTIL 2012, POST WHICH SEBI INTRODUCED THE SEBI (ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT FUNDS) REGULATIONS ON MAY 21, 2012. These Regulations IDENTIFIED HEDGE FUNDS UNDER 'CATEGORY III AIF', WHICH FOLLOWS DIVERSE AND COMPLEX INVESTMENT STRATEGIES, AKIN TO INVESTMENT STRATEGIES FOLLOWED BY HEDGE FUNDS GLOBALLY."

    This date is the hinge of the whole chapter. Before it, "NO HEDGE FUNDS WERE DOMICILED IN INDIA" — not because they were forbidden, but because "THERE WAS NO REGULATORY REGIME FOR HEDGE FUNDS TO BE SET UP OR MARKETED IN INDIA." The Regulations did not relax a prohibition; they created the missing category.

    What followed: "THE PERIOD BETWEEN 2012 AND 2019 CAN BE TERMED AS THE CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSFORMATION PHASE for the Category III AIF industry in India."

    The scale of the change: ⚠️ "As on MARCH 01, 2026, 1802 AIFs WERE REGISTERED WITH SEBI. STARTING WITH JUST 21 FUNDS IN 2012, the industry has seen a high growth." Both ends of that comparison are examinable.

    A related date worth keeping separate in your mind: 21 May 2012 is when the AIF Regulations came in; 1949 is when the first hedge fund was launched by A.W. Jones & Co.

Where this is taught

Free preparation for NISM Series XIX-B

Related terms

← All terms
Something look wrong? Report it