Quick Bytes on Union Budget 2026
Our Resources
Our Resources
Access the Youtube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXH6Nt1fXdg
See our other resources on this topic:
Harshita Malik | finserv@vinodkothari.com
I was giving a collateral-free loan only, but the borrower didn’t agree – he voluntarily came and pledged family gold and silver jewellery!
This is perhaps the way Banks will be reacting after the RBI Clarificatory circular on Voluntary Pledge of Gold (‘Voluntary Pledge Circular’). The Voluntary Pledge Circular dated July 11, 2025 which addresses all Scheduled Commercial Banks (including RRBs & SFBs), State Co-operative Banks, District Central Co-operative Banks states that a a voluntary pledge of gold or silver as collateral by a borrower for an agricultural or MSME loan shall not amount to a violation of the Reserve Bank of India (Lending Against Gold and Silver Collateral) Directions, 2025 (‘Gold Lending Directions’), provided that the sanctioned amount is within the collateral-free limit laid down in the earlier RBI guidelines.
It may be noted that as per separate RBI circulars dated December 6, 2024 and July 24, 2017 farm lending upto Rs. 2 lacs and MSE lending upto Rs. 10 lacs shall be done without collateral.
This clarification by the regulator may enable lenders to circumvent the regulations by categorizing collateral as a voluntary pledge for loans within the collateral-free caps, whereas in reality, the borrower may have been directly or indirectly compelled to offer such collateral.
Further, the circular also makes reference to the Gold Lending Directions. A question may arise if the Gold Lending Directions will apply even in the case of voluntary pledge of gold.
The Gold Lending Directions should apply in all such cases of voluntary pledges to avoid a situation of regulatory arbitrage, where lenders could potentially bypass regulatory guidelines merely by categorizing the pledge as voluntary.
Our resources on the topic-
– Barsha Dikshit and Neha Malu | resolution@vinodkothari.com
The provisions related to the carry forward and set-off of business losses in the context of corporate restructuring have been a critical aspect of corporate taxation. The Budget 2025[1] proposes certain amendments concerning carry forward of losses in cases of amalgamation, pursuant to which mergers shall not be used for evergreening of losses. That is to say, the benefit of carry forward shall be limited to eight years from the onset of losses, and not eight years from the merger.
Read more →Payal Agarwal l payal@vinodkothari.com
The Union Budget 2024 refers to permitting a flexible mode for financing leasing of aircrafts and ships, and pooled funds of private equity through a variable capital company (VCC) structure. Variable Capital Companies (VCCs), as the name suggests, are companies in which the capital is not static, that is to say, the investor has the option to withdraw capital based on the satisfaction of certain conditions. In a traditional company form of entity, the capital is static, and any reduction in capital (except buyback upto a specified extent), attracts specific procedure, including most importantly, approval from NCLT and other regulatory/ statutory authorities.
Read more: Variable Capital CompaniesGlobally, similar structures exist in various countries, known by different names, such as – Variable Capital Companies in Singapore and Mauritius, Open Ended Investment Companies (OEIC) in the UK, and a specific form of collective asset management companies in Ireland and Luxembourg.
In the context of India, the discussions around VCC are not new, the IFSCA has been exploring opportunities to bring a legislative framework for incorporation of the VCC form of entity. In fact, an Expert Committee, under the Chairmanship of Mr M S Sahoo, had released a report providing recommendations for bringing a legal framework for VCCs in IFSC in October, 2022.
VCCs are a relatively new form of corporate structure, an investment vehicle housing multiple funds under one entity, while ringfencing the asset pools of each sub-fund distinctly – like a Protected Cell Company (PCC).
In jurisdictions such as Mauritius, the VCC has an option to elect to have a separate legal identity for each of its sub-fund, however, the same would require each sub-fund to be incorporated as a separate company. Even if the sub-funds are not incorporated as separate legal entities, their properties remain distinct from the umbrella fund (VCC) and any liability attributable to a specific fund is discharged solely from the assets of such a sub-fund.
Most importantly, as the name suggests, these structures have a flexibility on pay-outs to the investors. Such flexibility is provided in the form of permitting redemption of the shares of the fund at any time at a price related to the net present value of the scheme property, subject to the shares being fully paid-up.
The Report recommended VCC structure to be first introduced in IFSCs owing to the preparedness of international players in dealing with such structures since VCC structures are already existent in various other jurisdictions. Based on the functioning of the VCC-structure in IFSCs, the same may be subsequently introduced in the domestic Indian financial system too.
Under the IFSC regulatory ecosystem, VCCs are proposed to be recognised under the IFSCA Act, 2019. Additionally, the activities of the VCC should be governed by the IFSCA (Fund Management) Regulations, 2022.
The Report suggests a VCC to be incorporated as a company, and the sub-funds thereof to derive their character from the VCC instead of being recognised as separate legal persons. There is a segregation of assets and liabilities at each sub-fund level, and as such, each sub-fund is bankruptcy remote from the insolvency proceedings initiated against another sub-fund.
Unlike a company which has a fixed paid-up capital, in case of a VCC, the paid-up capital, at all times, reflects the value of the net assets of the VCC.
The Report suggests VCCs may raise funds in both equity and debt form, issuing different classes of equity and debt securities to represent the interest of the holder in the specific sub-fund to which the securities relate to. The Report also proposes the introduction of “management shares” and “participating shares”, similar to the concept already prevalent in Singapore.
The recommendations suggest redemption of participating shares, carrying economic rights, at the net asset value of the scheme, subject to the shares being fully paid-up. On the other hand, for management shares, containing voting rights, the same is proposed to be irredeemable, however, the VCCs should have an option to buyback such shares with requisite approvals and following due procedure.
In view of the flexibility that VCC provides, the structure is getting increasingly popular. In Singapore, since the launch of provisions around VCCs in 2020 vide the Variable Capital Companies Act, 2018 in January, 2020, a total of 969 VCCs have been incorporated till 2022, representing around 2000 sub-funds.
Read our other articles on Union Budget 2024
– Finance Bill 2024 puts buybacks to a biting tax proposal w.e.f. 1st October, 2024
-Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com
Among the tax law changes proposed by Finance Bill, 2024, the one on share buybacks, explained as one intended to remove tax inequity, is perhaps the most unexplainable. The proposed change, by introduction of a new sub-clause (f) to section 2 (22) [deemed dividend], and simultaneous amendments to sec. 46A and sec. 115QA, not only shifts the tax burden from companies to shareholders, but surprisingly, brings to tax the entire amount paid on buyback, irrespective of the excess realised by the shareholder. It leaves the cost of shares to be claimed as capital loss and set off against potential capital gains, of course only if such gains arise within the prescribed timelines for carry forward and set off.
Buyback of shares is the only way a company seeks to scale down its capital. The proposed amendment makes it impossible for companies to reduce their capital base by returning capital not needed, as the only other way is through reduction of share capital, which is subject to shareholders’, creditors’, and NCLT approval. It is surprising that this amendment by the very same Budget which proposes to introduce the novel concept of “variable capital companies”.
Read more →Soma Bagaria
Vinod Kothari l corplaw@vinodkothari.com
