Simrat Singh | Finserv@vinodkothari.com

REITs and InvITs are often discussed together as parallel innovations in India’s capital markets, reflecting a push towards deploying capital in real estate and infrastructure. Both frameworks were introduced in 2014, share a trust-based structure and are subject to broadly similar regulatory principles, including mandatory cash distribution requirements and both also have a common tax provision in section 115UA of Income Tax Act, 1961 (section 223 in the 2025 Tax Act). Comparatively, InvITs have witnessed a significantly stronger growth, largely driven by the government’s sustained push towards infrastructure development. The data clearly reflects this divergence. As of April, 2026, there are 6 registered REITs and 28 InvITs in India, managing an AUM of ₹2,50,000 Crores and ₹6,20,000 Crores respectively. Among the InvITs, Road sector InvITs dominate the total AUM. (see our write-up on distribution of AUM of InvITs here). Notable, the national monetisation pipeline 2.0 proposed monetization of approx ₹3,35,000 Crores worth of highway assets under InvIT/TOT models (see our write-up on this here). 

While InvITs are required to distribute 90% of their cash flows, the underlying SPVs, mandated to be in company form, are constrained by dividend distribution rules that rely on accounting profits rather than actual cash generation. In sectors such as roads and power, where assets are finite-life concession rights or long term power purchase agreements, such assets are subject to heavy amortisation which leads to SPVs report book losses despite generating steady cash flows. As a result, cash exists within the SPV but cannot be upstreamed efficiently as dividends. This issue stems from treating InvITs on par with REITs despite differences in investments and nature of assets and from disallowing flexibility in the legal form of SPVs.

Industry workaround has been towards debt-heavy (thin capitalisation) structures, enabling distributions through interest and loan repayments, though these might raise tax issues (discussed below). Beyond such workarounds, more durable solutions are explored in line with international models like US Master Limited Partnerships and Singapore Business Trusts such as permitting dividend declarations based on cash flows rather than accounting profits, reconsidering the mandated company form of SPVs to allow more flexible structures such as trusts or LLPs etc.

Nature of investments by REITs and InvITs

REITs and InvITs are different in the sense that one invests in a property and looks at long term appreciation/rentals. The other looks at an infra asset which gives cash flows only for a certain period

REITs hold income-generating real estate assets with no fixed economic life. These assets can be retained, redeveloped/renovated or replaced over time. At the SPV level, there is no restriction on holding multiple assets and the portfolio of assets can be managed through acquisitions and divestments.

In contrast, InvITs, particularly in the road sector, hold assets that are inherently finite. These assets are in the form of concession rights and are intangible assets where the concessioning authority (usually NHAI) grants a right to operate and collect revenue for a defined period, say 15 to 20 years. Note that the road asset is not the asset that is taken on the balance sheet of the SPV, rather it is the intangible right to collect revenue on the road that is capitalised. At the end of the concession period, the asset reverts back to the concessioning authority, leaving no residual economic value. At this stage, the SPV merely becomes a shell entity, holding in itself only residual litigations or tax demands awaiting its eventual outcome of being wound-up.

Moreover, there are certain constraints imposed by the concession agreement entered into between the SPV and NHAI. Under standard concession agreements, each road project is required to be housed in a separate SPV. Which is why the name of the SPVs are in the style “[Name of Road Stretch] Tollway/Toll Road Private Limited”. The “one project, one SPV” model prevents aggregation of road assets within the same SPV and keeps the rights, obligations and risk allocation clearly demarcated. While this mandatory housing of each project in a separate private limited entity has its advantages, such as lender protection, bankruptcy remoteness and clarity in enforcement of contractual rights, it also creates rigidity for the InvIT. 

The inability to pool assets or recycle assets within the SPVs prevents capital recycling. Unlike REIT SPVs, InvIT SPVs cannot recycle capital either by selling assets or acquiring new ones within the same entity. As a result, while REITs can operate vehicles with a perpetual asset base, InvITs function as portfolios of wasting assets that are depleted over time and cannot be replaced within the same SPV. 

Distribution requirement and the dividend constraint

Both REITs and InvITs (and their SPVs/HoldCos) are required to distribute at least 90% of their net distributable cash flows. This distribution can occur through interest on loan, loan repayment or dividends from the SPVs. The challenge for InvITs arises at the SPV level, in the case of dividend distribution. Under Section 123 of the Companies Act, a company can declare dividends only out of distributable profits or accumulated reserves. The books of such SPVs are loaded with high upfront capitalisation of construction costs and subsequent recognition of a concession asset. This asset is depreciated (or amortised in case of intangible assets such as concession right) over the concession period along with the amortization of the earlier capitalised expenditure, leading to significant non-cash expenses in the profit and loss account which continues to hit the Profit and Loss account even when the SPV starts collecting cash. As a result, even when the SPV generates operating cash flows from toll collections, it remains in ‘book losses’ for a portion of the concession life. The consequence is that such SPV is unable to declare dividend distribution to the InvIT despite the availability of cash.

Depreciation on a non-replaceable asset?

Accounting principles require allocation of asset cost over its useful life. This is conceptually sound for assets that are expected to be replaced or reinvested in. A machinery may be required to be replaced once its useful life is over, therefore, it is only prudent to set aside a part of the cost so there is enough cushion when the entity goes to replace the machinery. 

In the case of REITs, this logic holds good. Depreciation reflects the wear and tear of the replaceable asset and the entity has the ability to reinvest/replace the asset over time (i.e. purchase a new rent yielding building in the same SPV). The economic cycle supports the accounting treatment.

For InvIT SPVs especially in the road sector, the asset is not replaced at the end of its life; it is handed back to the concessioning authority. The SPV has no ability to deploy accumulated depreciation (or amortization in case of an intangible asset) towards acquisition of a new asset. Its economic life is co-terminus with the concession period. This creates a disconnect between accounting profits and economic cash flows. Depreciation suppresses book profits without corresponding economic relevance in terms of asset replacement within the SPV.

International comparisons 

Singapore’s Business Trusts

Singapore offers the clearest analogy to and resolution of this problem. The Business Trusts Act 2004 (BTA), administered by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), created a hybrid structure that combines features of a company (separate legal personality, professional management) with features of a trust (cash-based distributions). The defining advantage of the Singapore Business Trust (BT) is stated explicitly in the legislation and was articulated in the MAS’s explanatory brief for the Business Trusts (Amendment) Bill 2022:

“A key advantage of a BT structure is the ability of a trust to pay dividends to unitholders out of its cash profits. In contrast, a company can only pay dividends out of its accounting profits (i.e. after deducting non-cash expenses such as depreciation). The BT structure is thus particularly suited to businesses with stable growth and high cash flow.”

Singapore listed 15 Business Trusts as of 2026, covering assets including power generation, toll roads, and shipping. For infrastructure BTs, the cash-based distribution right is central to the investment proposition. Critically, the BT does not interpose a company-form SPV between the trust and the infrastructure asset; the trust itself holds the operational assets. This avoids the Section 123-equivalent constraint that would arise if a company-form subsidiary were the operating entity.

The Singapore model, however, is not directly transplantable to the Indian road sector context for the reason explained above ie NHAI’s requirement for a company-form concessionaire. 

The US Master Limited Partnership Model

In the United States, the Master Limited Partnership (MLP) structure, originally developed for oil and gas pipelines and subsequently applied to other infrastructure sectors, avoids the dividend constraint through the partnership form. Partnerships are not subject to corporate dividend restrictions; distributions to limited partners (akin to unitholders in InvITs) are made based on cash available for distribution, a metric that is equivalent to NDCF and adds back non-cash charges including depreciation and amortisation. Interestingly, MLPs typically grant the General Partner (GP is somewhat analogous to the investment manager in an InvIT), a share in the distributable cash flows through Incentive Distribution Rights (IDRs). These rights are structured on a tiered basis, such that as distributions to Limited Partners increase, the GP becomes entitled to a progressively larger share of incremental cash flows. This creates a performance-linked incentive for the GP to enhance distributable cash. At the same time, the GP retains discretion over the quantum of cash to be distributed versus retained.

Possible approaches

In the original consultation process leading to the introduction of InvITs, SEBI did take note of international structures such as the Master Limited Partnerships in the United States, which allow cash-based distributions without being constrained by law dividend rules. However, there was no discussion on the legal form of the SPV and the final regulations settled on a company structure for underlying entities. Had there been flexibility to allow SPVs to be structured as trusts and/or LLPs, the present issue may not have arisen in the first place.

Thin capitalisation

A commonly adopted workaround is to maintain a thinly capitalised SPV, with the bulk of funding structured as loans from the InvIT rather than equity investment. In such cases, distributions are routed primarily through interest payments and loan repayments instead of dividends, a structure widely used in InvIT arrangements. However, this approach may attract limitations under Section 94B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (section 177 in the 2025 Act), which operates as a Specific Anti-Avoidance Rule (SAAR) on excessive interest deductions. The provision applies where an Indian borrower incurs interest expenditure exceeding ₹1 crore in respect of debt from a non-resident associated enterprise (or even third-party debt backed by such an enterprise). In such cases, the deduction for interest is restricted to 30% of EBITDA or the actual interest payable to associated enterprises, whichever is lower and any excess interest is disallowed. Accordingly, in InvITs where non-residents usually hold the majority of the units, thin capitalisation may lead to disallowance of interest deductions for SPVs.

Allowing Dividend Declaration Based on NDCF

A more targeted solution would be a targeted regulatory relaxation by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, permitting dividend declaration by InvIT SPVs based on NDCF rather than accounting profits. This would essentially create a sector-specific carve-out from Section 123’s profit test for companies that are 100% subsidiaries of registered InvITs or HoldCos of InvITs. 

Tweaking the legal form of the SPV

One possible approach is to reconsider the legal form of SPVs. Allowing SPVs to be structured as trusts could align the distribution framework more closely with cash flows rather than accounting profits. However, this would require a shift in regulatory and contractual frameworks as SEBI and NHAI both need to be onboarded on this. This solution seems far-fetched as Road assets vesting in a trust is a scenario which NHAI will not be comfortable with.

Conclusion

The principle is clear: regulation must follow the nature of the asset, not force the asset into an ill-fitting form. To mandate distribution without enabling it is, as in the tale of King Canute, to command the tide to rise while forbidding it a shore. An instruction complete in form, but wanting in effect. India’s InvIT framework is, without a doubt, a notable financial innovation, a bridge that has opened public infrastructure to private capital and supported the National Monetisation Pipeline. But the task is not merely to invite capital but to also ensure that the channels through which it flows are kosher. The present framework, in treating REITs and InvITs as parallel structures, overlooks divergence. While REITs rest on perpetuity of assets, InvITs are built on finite-life concessions that steadily deplete. This mismatch, compounded by accounting norms, contractual structures of NHAI and the Companies Act, creates a distribution bottleneck, where cash is generated but cannot be cleanly upstreamed. Industry has found workarounds, principally by way of intercompany loans. But the issue warrants policy attention. We can take guidance from comparative regimes, such as the Singapore Business Trust framework and U.S. MLPs and recognise infrastructure as a cash-flow distribution business and permit distribution mechanisms that reflect this reality. It is therefore imperative that SEBI, MCA, and NHAI act in concert to resolve this misalignment. Only then can InvITs evolve from a promising innovation into a durable pillar of India’s infrastructure architecture.

See our other resources on InvITs:

1. InvITs and REITs: Regulatory actions for more enabling environment
2. PPT on InvITs
3. Roads to Riches: A snapshot of InvITs in India
4. CG norms for REITs and InvITs aligned with equity-listed entity