GIFT CityAIFFund DomicileIFSCAIndia

GIFT City vs Mauritius: Comparing Fund Domiciles for India-Focused Strategies

For decades, India-focused offshore funds defaulted to Mauritius. The GIFT City IFSC changes the conversation. Here is a structural comparison of the two domiciles for fund managers and allocators looking at India.

By Gaurav Raizada·Co-founder & Partner 15 May 2026 8 min read

Why this comparison matters

For two decades, the default route for India-focused offshore funds was Mauritius. The jurisdiction's combination of a tax treaty with India, English common law, familiar fund structures, and an established service-provider ecosystem made it the path of least resistance for global allocators seeking exposure to Indian capital markets.

That picture has changed. Amendments to the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (notably from 2017 onwards) re-shaped the historic capital-gains treatment. Substance requirements tightened. And, in parallel, India built a new domicile from the ground up — the GIFT City International Financial Services Centre, regulated by IFSCA.

For fund managers and allocators looking at India today, the relevant question is no longer whether Mauritius is suitable as a default; it is whether GIFT City IFSC offers a structurally different proposition worth choosing on its own merits.

Regulatory authorities, side by side

Both jurisdictions have legitimate, well-established fund regulation. They differ in architecture.

Mauritius regulates funds through the Financial Services Commission (FSC). Collective investment schemes can be set up as funds, protected cell companies, or variable capital companies, with familiar service-provider arrangements. The regime is mature, English-language, and well-understood by international counsel.

GIFT City IFSC is regulated by the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA), a statutory body created by the IFSCA Act 2019. IFSCA is a unified regulator for all financial services within the IFSC — funds, banking, capital markets, insurance, and ancillary services — replacing the otherwise fragmented oversight by RBI, SEBI, PFRDA, and IRDAI for IFSC activities. For an India-focused manager, this means a single regulator end-to-end.

Tax treatment — the high-level picture

Tax outcomes for any investor depend on their jurisdiction of residency, applicable treaties, and individual circumstances; the summary below is a structural overview and not advice.

The historical Mauritius advantage rested heavily on the India-Mauritius DTAA's capital-gains article. Post the 2016 protocol and subsequent amendments, that capital- gains shield was substantially curtailed for shares acquired on or after a defined cut-off, with grandfathering for prior holdings. Substance requirements have tightened alongside, and several global anti-avoidance frameworks (BEPS, PPT, MLI) bear on the treaty's practical application.

The GIFT City IFSC regime was designed to be tax-competitive with leading international financial centres. Specific exemptions, holiday windows, and pass-through treatments apply at fund and investor levels, with conditions, and continue to evolve as the regime matures. For India-focused strategies in particular, a domicile and manager within India (the IFSC is Indian territory) can simplify the analysis of Indian source income, withholding, and characterisation — though this depends on fund structure and investor residency.

The takeaway is not that one jurisdiction is uniformly cheaper than the other. It is that the analysis has changed: the historical Mauritius capital-gains shield is no longer a one-line answer, and the GIFT City IFSC offers a different combination of features designed for the modern environment.

Investor familiarity and infrastructure

Mauritius' advantage in investor familiarity remains real. Allocators, custodians, fund administrators, and legal counsel have decades of experience with the jurisdiction. Operating documentation is well-templated. Mauritian funds are reasonably easy to explain to global LPs without preamble.

GIFT City is the newer entrant and is still building this base. But it is building from a starting position that includes:

Modern office infrastructure inside a purpose-built SEZ, integrated with exchange and clearing facilities.
A growing roster of fund management entities, custodians, administrators, banking units, and insurance entities operating from the IFSC.
Streamlined single-window licensing for funds and intermediaries, reducing time-to- launch.
Foreign-currency settlement, enabling natural hedging for cross-border investors.

The familiarity gap will narrow as more managers launch from GIFT IFSC and as advisor coverage deepens. For a manager weighing the trade-off today, it is worth asking the target investor base directly which structure they are comfortable subscribing to.

Why this matters now

Three factors shift the calculus toward GIFT City IFSC for India-focused strategies:

Onshore alignment. A fund and its manager are both located in Indian territory, regulated by an Indian statutory authority. For India-focused strategies, this avoids the layered structure of an offshore manager directing Indian assets through a third-country vehicle.
Regulatory clarity. One regulator (IFSCA) for fund, manager, and most ancillary financial services within the IFSC. The number of distinct conversations during a launch is reduced.
Resilient design. The regime was built post-BEPS, post-MLI, post-LOB. It is designed for the current international tax architecture rather than retro-fitted to it.

What this does not change

GIFT City IFSC is not a universal replacement for every jurisdiction in every situation. Existing Mauritius funds with grandfathered positions have ongoing logic. Multi-strategy managers running global mandates may have reasons unrelated to India to prefer other domiciles. Investor base familiarity remains a real consideration for capital-raising.

What has changed is that GIFT City IFSC is no longer the experimental option. It is a functioning Indian-regulated domicile with active funds, active service providers, and an explicit policy mandate to host activity that used to live offshore.

Conclusion

For India-focused alternative strategies, the comparison between Mauritius and GIFT City IFSC is no longer one-sided. Mauritius retains genuine advantages in investor familiarity and ecosystem depth. GIFT City offers onshore Indian regulation, unified supervision, purpose-built infrastructure, and a regime designed for current international standards.

The right choice depends on strategy, investor base, and the manager's view of where each ecosystem is heading. What is clear is that the conversation has fundamentally changed — and any India-focused launch in 2026 onward should evaluate GIFT City IFSC on merit, not by default.

For a working example of how the IFSC regime applies in practice, see the GIFT City AIF explainer and the iRage Stratus Fund page.