Explanation
- A
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement- II is the correct explanation for Statement-I
Both correct and II explains I. Statement-I gets the tax treatment backwards.
- B
Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement- II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I
Both correct but II does not explain I. I is still false.
- C
Statement-I is correct but Statement- II is incorrect
I correct, II incorrect. Dividends / interest from InvITs are not in that exempt-vs-taxable split.
- D
Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct
I incorrect, II correct. InvITs are treated as borrowers under SARFAESI; the tax sentence in I is wrong.
Summary. Official key is (d). Interest distributed by InvITs is generally taxable in investors’ hands; the ‘interest exempt, dividend taxable’ split in Statement-I is not the law. InvITs are notified as borrowers under SARFAESI, so Statement-II stands and does not need I.
Same topic · past papers
UPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
-
2023 · Q72 · General Studies · 2 marks
With reference to Central Bank digital currencies, consider the following statements : 1. It is possible to make payments in a digital currency without using US dollar or SWIFT system. 2. A digital currency can be distributed with a condition programmed into it such as a time-fame for spending it. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?