NextFin News - India's markets regulator has recommended scrapping the long-term capital gains tax on foreign investors, a move aimed at reversing a record exodus of overseas money from the country's equities, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said. The Securities and Exchange Board of India has also proposed exempting domestic mutual fund investors from the tax when they sell existing holdings to buy new ones, as the country tries to revive equity markets that have lagged global peers for two straight years.
The recommendations are not binding, and a final decision rests with the government, which will set out its tax policy in the annual federal budget in February. But the fact that the regulator has formally taken the position to the finance ministry marks the most concrete signal yet that India is prepared to retool how it taxes overseas capital. One of the two sources put the logic plainly:
"The proposals are aimed at reducing the upfront tax burden on foreign investors."
Email queries to the regulator and the finance ministry were not answered, and the sources declined to be named because the recommendations are part of private pre-budget representations that have not been reported previously.
The Proposal and the Tax Arithmetic
Under the current structure, foreign investors pay 12.5 percent on long-term capital gains from Indian securities held for more than a year and 20 percent on short-term gains from holdings of 12 months or less. On top of that come securities transaction taxes on every trade and withholding taxes on dividends. The regulator has told investors that transaction costs associated with buying Indian equities are among the highest across jurisdictions.
The securities transaction tax deserves its own line. Unlike a capital gains levy, which taxes only profitable exits, the transaction tax applies to every buy and sell regardless of outcome. That makes it doubly painful in a falling market: investors pay it on the way down as they cut losses, and again on the way up when they re-enter. The combination of a gains tax on top of a turnover tax is unusual among large emerging markets, and it is the pairing — not any single levy — that investors have complained about in the regulator's meetings over the last two years.
The case for the cut is arithmetic, not ideology. Brokerage firm IIFL estimates that scrapping capital gains tax could lift foreign investors' returns by 2.3 percentage points. That is a meaningful swing for institutional money managers whose mandates are benchmarked against the MSCI Emerging Markets index, and whose performance fees and client mandates turn on relative returns measured in single digits.
The benchmark gap is the real pressure point. India's Nifty 50 has fallen 4.8 percent over the last two years. The MSCI Emerging Markets index has risen 40 percent over the same period. For a global allocator, India has not merely underperformed; it has gone backwards while the peer group moved forward. Returns on diversified domestic equity mutual funds have also stagnated: average large-cap fund returns are down 1.6 percent, according to fund research firm Morningstar.
The selling has been relentless. Foreign investors have sold a record $31 billion in Indian stocks this year. In October alone, overseas funds pulled roughly 48,211 crore rupees from equities, following a 35,861 crore rupee withdrawal in September, according to depository data compiled by the National Securities Depository. The full-year 2026 equity outflow stands near 308,513 crore rupees — nearly double the 166,000 crore rupees withdrawn over all of 2025. The persistent selling has also pressured the rupee, which is why the regulator has held scores of meetings with foreign investors over the last two years.
The Mechanism: What a Capital Gains Cut Actually Changes
Removing the long-term gains levy does not make Indian stocks cheaper. It does not change earnings, valuations, or the rupee's trajectory. What it changes is the after-tax return on a successful investment — and the behavioral incentive around holding periods.
Consider the transmission channel. A foreign pension fund weighing an India allocation runs a simple comparison: expected local-currency return, minus expected currency depreciation, minus taxes, versus the same calculation for competing markets. Several jurisdictions, including Singapore and Hong Kong, do not levy a capital gains tax on portfolio investors at all, according to international tax references. India's 12.5 percent levy on long-term gains sits at the top of that comparison table. Cutting it to zero narrows the gap.
There is a second channel: the holding-period incentive. A tax that applies to long-term gains as well as short-term ones punishes patience. By exempting long-term gains while keeping the 20 percent short-term rate, the proposal flips the incentive — the longer an investor holds, the less tax it pays. That is precisely the kind of capital the regulator wants: sticky, benchmark-agnostic money that does not flee at the first sign of a stronger dollar.
The mutual fund switch exemption addresses a related leak on the domestic side. Indian mutual funds hold 82.6 trillion rupees, about $870.80 billion, in assets, with roughly 30 billion rupees flowing in each month through systematic investment plans. If retail investors can move between schemes without triggering a tax event on units held more than a year, more of that monthly flow stays compounding inside the system rather than being harvested by the tax authority at each switch.
But the mechanism has a limit. A tax cut improves the payoff if the investment works. It does nothing if the investment thesis itself is broken. If overseas funds are selling because of dollar strength, elevated U.S. Treasury yields, high crude prices, or India's own valuation premium, a capital gains exemption addresses only the tax line of the return equation, not the return itself.
There is also a revenue trade-off the government must weigh. Capital gains taxes are a direct, low-friction source of fiscal revenue — collected automatically when a position is sold. Replacing that revenue means leaning harder on other levers: the securities transaction tax, which taxes turnover rather than profit and can itself discourage trading; dividend withholding, which taxes income rather than appreciation; or the goods and services tax, which is politically harder to raise. A government that removes a gains levy is betting that higher volumes and a stronger market will backfill the lost revenue through these other channels. That bet has worked in some jurisdictions and failed in others; the difference is usually the depth of the domestic investor base. India's domestic base is deep and growing, which makes the bet plausible — but it is still a bet.
The rupee adds a third dimension to the mechanism. When foreign investors sell, they convert rupees into dollars, which weakens the currency. A weaker rupee then makes the next foreign investor's eventual exit more expensive in dollar terms, which can accelerate the next round of selling. This is the feedback loop the regulator has been fighting in its meetings. A capital gains cut does not stop the loop directly, but it lowers the tax cost embedded in every exit, which reduces one component of the exit penalty. It is a partial fix to a self-reinforcing problem — useful, but not a circuit breaker.
The historical context matters, because India has been here before. The long-term capital gains tax on listed equities was reintroduced in 2018 after a long exemption, and then restructured in the 2024 budget, when the rate on domestic investors' long-term equity gains was raised to 12.5 percent while the exemption threshold was adjusted. Each change was made with a stated objective — curbing speculation in 2018, simplifying the rate structure in 2024 — and each was followed by debate about whether the revenue gained was worth the competitiveness lost. The current proposal is the pendulum swinging back: a recognition that a tax designed for a market dominated by domestic savers now sits awkwardly on a market that needs foreign capital. The lesson from the last two cycles is that Indian equity taxation is not a one-way ratchet; it changes when the flow data forces a rethink. The 2026 outflow numbers are that forcing function.
The Counter-Thesis: Tax Is Not the Binding Constraint
The strongest argument against the proposal is that it solves the wrong problem. Brokerage firm Jefferies noted earlier this week that any reduction in capital gains taxes could improve the market's attractiveness and support inflows — but "could" is doing heavy lifting there. The outflows of 2026 were not a tax protest; they were a global risk-off event concentrated in one market that had grown expensive.
Three forces drove the selling, and none of them is the capital gains tax. First, the dollar strengthened and U.S. yields rose, pulling capital back to American assets — a tide that lifts all dollar returns and sinks emerging markets indiscriminately. Second, crude oil prices climbed, worsening India's terms of trade as a net energy importer and pressuring the rupee. Third, Indian equities entered the year at a valuation premium to peers that has only partially compressed. A tax cut does not weaken the dollar, lower oil prices, or change India's price-to-earnings ratio.
There is also a sequencing problem. The finance minister has said publicly she is open to hearing suggestions on removing the tax, but no decision has been announced, and the regulator's recommendations are private pre-budget representations. Even if the government accepts them, the change would not take effect until the budget passes in February, and possibly not until the following fiscal year. Capital that has already left does not wait for legislation.
And there is a fairness complication the proposal creates at home. Domestic investors still pay 12.5 percent on long-term equity gains. Exempting foreign investors while keeping the levy on local savers invites a political backlash — the perception that overseas money is being courted at the expense of domestic taxpayers. The mutual fund switch exemption partially offsets that, but it does not erase it.
The counter-thesis, stated plainly: India's competitiveness problem is broader than one tax line. Transaction costs, settlement frictions, derivatives restrictions, and the rupee's convertibility all sit in the way. A capital gains cut is necessary but not sufficient.
Conclusion: What to Watch, and What Would Prove This Wrong
The immediate impact is sentiment, not flows. In early trade on 2 November, GIFT Nifty pointed to a positive start, trading around 23,281 — up roughly 195 points, or 0.84 percent, from the previous close of Nifty futures, according to market data. That is a one-day reaction to a headline, not evidence of a reversal.
Split by time horizon, the picture diverges. In the short term, the announcement itself is a tailwind for market sentiment and for the rupee, which has been under pressure from persistent foreign selling. In the medium term, the effect depends entirely on whether the government adopts the recommendation in the February budget and whether global conditions — the dollar, yields, oil — cooperate. In the long term, this is a structural competitiveness fix: aligning India's tax treatment of foreign capital with markets that do not tax long-term share gains. If enacted, it removes a permanent friction rather than a cyclical one.
Base case: the government accepts the recommendation in some form for the February budget, foreign selling moderates but does not reverse in the first quarter, and India's equity premium to peers slowly compresses. Upside case: the cut is enacted cleanly, the dollar peaks, and foreign money returns fast enough to push the Nifty back toward its two-year highs. Downside case: the proposal is diluted or dropped from the budget, or global risk-off intensifies, and the 2026 outflow record is extended into 2027.
The falsifying signal is specific: if monthly foreign portfolio investor equity flows do not turn net positive within two quarters of any budget enactment — or if the proposal is absent from the February budget altogether — the thesis that tax competitiveness will restore inflows is wrong. Watch the monthly depository flow print, not the headlines.
The real question is not whether a tax cut helps. It does, by 2.3 percentage points of after-tax return. The question is whether that is enough to offset a two-year period in which Indian equities fell while the emerging-market benchmark rose 40 percent. This is a down payment on competitiveness, not the invoice.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
