Usually yes, if you want the deduction back. The platform deducts on the transaction itself, which happens whether or not the trade produced a gain and whether or not a treaty helps you. That deduction is not the tax. It is money held against a liability that has not been computed. The Indian return is where the transfers are added up, the gains computed under the dedicated regime that applies to them, any treaty position claimed, and the deducted amounts set against the result. Skip the return and the deduction stays with the revenue. Most non-resident crypto files are a recovery rather than a payment.
Crypto tax in India for non-residents — what does India require?
- 15+Years of the founder's cross-border experience
- 18,000+Clients served across our offices in India, the USA, Canada and the UAE
- 5.0Google rating
- 4Global offices — India, USA, Canada & UAE
Gains on transfer are taxed with restricted deductions, and the platform deducts at source on the transaction. India collects at source before considering any exemption, so most Indian files are a reconciliation and a recovery rather than a payment.
What India requires
Gains on transfer are taxed with restricted deductions, and the platform deducts at source on the transaction. A non-resident dealing on an Indian platform reconciles that deduction, and any treaty position, on an Indian return.

Where it does not apply
India taxes virtual digital asset transfers under a dedicated regime with a transaction-level deduction at source, and the usual rules on setting off losses do not apply.
Your next step
The full treatment — who it binds, the deadline, the penalty and the fixed fee — is on Crypto tax in India for non-residents. If that describes your position, the next step is a short call — not a form.
Reviewed against current guidance for the 2025 and 2026 filing seasons by Udit Gupta, International Tax, Cross-Border Tax & Transfer Pricing Expert, Legal Quotient Consultants. Published as general information. For a position on your own file, call the 24-hour helpline.
Files that look like this one
A year of platform deductions reconciled to one return
A non-resident had traded actively on an Indian platform across a full year and had a deduction recorded against almost every disposal. No return had been filed, so all of it sat with the revenue. We took the exchange's transaction record, computed each transfer on the basis the dedicated regime requires, and set the deducted amounts against the result. The engagement produced a filed return, a reconciliation schedule tying each deduction to its trade, and a claim for the excess held. The schedule is now the client's template for the following year.
Read how this one runsRestating a return filed on a netted basis
A client had prepared his own Indian return by netting losing trades against winning ones, as he would have done at home. The regime that taxes these transfers does not permit that treatment, so the figure filed was not supportable. We rebuilt the computation transfer by transfer, identified the difference the netting had created, and corrected the filing before it was queried. The engagement produced a revised return, a written note of the basis used, and a record of the losses that had been claimed, so the client can explain the change if he is asked.
Read how this one runsTesting which platform costs the regime actually allows
A trader's computation deducted every charge the exchange had levied, together with interest on money borrowed to fund positions. Because deductions are restricted under this regime, most of that could not stand. We worked through the charges category by category, kept the allowable items in the computation, and listed the excluded ones separately with the reason beside each. The engagement produced a computation that can be defended line by line, and a note the client gives his bookkeeper so the following year's spreadsheet is built on the right basis from the start.
Read how this one runsDeductions that could not be traced to the taxpayer
A non-resident's deductions had been reported by the platform against incomplete registration details, so the amounts existed in the system but were not attributable to him. Reconciliation was impossible until the record matched. We established what the platform had filed, had the details corrected at source, and waited for the corrected reporting to appear before filing. The engagement produced a traceable set of deductions, a return that reconciled to them, and a claim for the excess. Most of the elapsed time was spent correcting other people's records rather than computing tax.
Read how this one runsSplitting a trading year across a change of residence
A client left India partway through the year and kept trading on the same Indian platform throughout. The transfers before and after the move do not sit in the same place, and the platform deducted identically across both periods. We split the transaction record at the date the residence position changed, computed each period on its own footing, and documented the basis of the split. The engagement produced one return covering both halves with the analysis attached, so the treatment of the later transfers is visible rather than implied.
Read how this one runsDocumenting a treaty position before it went into a return
A non-resident wanted to claim treaty relief on gains from transfers made through an Indian platform. Rather than put the claim in the return and wait, we analysed whether the treaty reached that class of gain on his facts, assembled the residence evidence, and recorded the reasoning. The engagement produced a written position paper held with the working papers and a return whose claim matched it. Where the analysis did not support relief, the return was filed without the claim and the client was told why, which is the more useful outcome of the two.
Read how this one runsThe Two-Year Window After Returning to India
Returning residents pass through a transitional status in which foreign income is largely outside the Indian net. The engagement establishes when the window opens and closes, and puts the transactions that benefit inside it.
Read how this one runsA Trust Abroad With a Canadian Connection
Contributions or beneficiaries in Canada can bring a foreign trust inside the Canadian net entirely. The analysis is who contributed what and when, because the answer decides whether the trust files here at all.
Read how this one runsAll case studies — every published engagement in one place.
Core International & Cross-Border Tax Services
Strategy and compliance for income, assets and families spread across borders.
Industries & Client Types We Serve Worldwide
- Foreign VAT / GST / sales tax registrations
- Marketplace withholding reviews
- Inventory nexus & PE analysis
- Multi-currency books reconciled
Software revenue crosses borders by default — sourcing rules, withholding on licence-like payments and IP location decide the effective rate.
Software revenue is rarely taxed where the team sits. Licence, subscription and service income are characterised differently by each side, and the answer decides withholding at source, treaty relief and whether a foreign customer creates a taxable presence at all — questions that are cheap to settle before the contract and expensive afterwards.
- Cross-border revenue sourcing & withholding
- IP structuring with real substance
- Equity for cross-border teams
- U.S. expansion: entity & PE setup
- Reg 105 / 102 waivers
- Permanent establishment risk
- Partner mobility planning
- Cross-border withholding recovery
- Section 216 rental returns
- FIRPTA withholding recovery
- Section 116 clearance
- Treaty credit optimization
- Transfer pricing documentation (s.247)
- Customs value vs transfer price
- Foreign affiliate reporting (T1134)
- Country-by-country reporting
- Reg 105 & U.S. CWA agreements
- Multi-state & country calendars
- Touring income allocation
- Royalty & image-rights withholding
- Residency analysis before moving
- Employer payroll exposure
- Totalization & social security
- Foreign tax credits
- Treaty access & PPT reviews
- FAPI & surplus computations
- Withholding-efficient routing
- Governance & substance
Questions that come up on Crypto tax in India for non-residents
Because the deduction under this regime attaches to the transfer, not to the profit. Each disposal on an Indian platform is its own event, so a year of active trading produces a long list of small deductions, including on trades you lost money on. That is the design, and the platform has no discretion about it. The consequence is arithmetic rather than injustice. Across a whole year the deducted total and the tax actually due on your gains are different numbers, often by a wide margin. Reconciling them is the reason to file, and the platform statement is the starting document.
Not in the way you would expect. The regime that taxes these transfers is deliberately separate, and the ordinary rules on setting off losses do not apply to it. So a year with heavy losses and modest gains does not necessarily net down to a small figure. Compute each disposal on the regime's own basis before assuming any offset, because the difference between a netted figure and a regime-computed one is usually the whole of the dispute. If you have already filed on a netted basis, that is a correctable error, but it is better found by you than by the revenue.
Deductions are restricted under this regime, which is one of the features that makes it unlike an ordinary capital gains computation. Costs that would be allowable elsewhere are not automatically allowable here. Rather than assuming a category is in or out, build the computation from what the regime actually permits against each transfer, and keep the excluded items listed separately so the position is visible if it is queried. Traders come to us with spreadsheets that net every platform charge against every disposal. Rebuilding that on the correct basis is often the bulk of the work on a crypto file.
A treaty position, if you have one, is claimed on the Indian return. It is not something the platform can apply at the point of the trade, so the deduction happens first regardless. Whether the treaty reaches these gains at all is a question to analyse on your facts and your residence, not to assume from the fact that a treaty exists. Have the analysis written down before filing, with the residence evidence attached, because a treaty claim made in a return and not supported in the file is the claim that gets unpicked.
Through the Indian return, by reconciliation. You need the platform's record of every transfer and every deduction, your tax registration details correctly recorded against those deductions, and a computation of the gains on the regime's own basis. The deducted amounts are then set against the computed liability and the excess claimed. Two things stall these files: deductions recorded against incomplete registration details, so they cannot be traced to you, and statements downloaded in a format that does not reconcile to the exchange's own totals. Fix both before filing, not after a query.
On the non-resident form for that country, reporting only the income that country may tax. In the US that is the 1040-NR; in Canada it is a T1 restricted to Canadian-source amounts, plus the elective returns under sections 216 and 217 where withholding on rent or pension income exceeded the real tax. The commonest error is filing the resident form by default and reporting worldwide income to a country with no right to it. See Form 1040-NR.
Both countries can have a claim, but paying double taxes on the same dollar is the exception rather than the rule. The United States taxes its citizens wherever they live; Canada, India and most others tax on residence. So a dual citizen living in one of them often files in both — a resident return in one, a citizen return in the other — while the credit and exclusion rules mean the total is usually close to the higher of the two, not the sum. Filing twice is not paying twice. See two returns as a dual citizen.



