Companies Act 2013 – Page 6 – Vinod Kothari Consultants

Electoral bonds junked: consequences for donor companies

February 17, 2024/0 Comments/in Companies Act 2013, corporate governance, Corporate Laws /by Payal Agarwal

– Payal Agarwal, Senior Manager (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

In a recent Supreme Court ruling in the matter of Association for Democratic Reforms & Anr. v/s Union of India, Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS/ Scheme) was declared as unconstitutional, including certain amendments to section 182 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“CA”), amended vide the Finance Act, 2017 as arbitrary and violative of the Constitution of India (COI).

Naturally, a question arises: What is wrong? Contributions to political parties? No. It is only the opacity of the recipient which has been hit. Hence, if companies have contributed, they couldn’t have kept a shroud of secrecy over the same.

Two, if companies had to disclose, and the amendments on 2017 are now junked, does it mean companies have to go back and disclose? It doesn’t seem so. In fact, the apex court itself has taken care of the actionables and put the burden of disclosure on the Election Commission of India (ECI).

Corporate houses, apparently, the largest contributors to electoral bonds, have expressed concerns on what will be the implications of the ruling on donor companies. Several questions arise – What has been declared unconstitutional and what is still valid? What would be the fate of the political donations already made? What actionables arise on a company having made donations to political parties through electoral bonds or otherwise? In this write-up, the author has attempted to analyze the same in light of the 232-pager ruling.

Section 182 of CA – Pre and Post Finance Act 2017

In order to understand what has been rendered unconstitutional and why, let us analyse the provisions of section 182 of CA as it stood prior to the amendment pursuant to Finance Act 2017 v/s how it stands today.

Particulars	Position prior to Finance Act, 2017	Position post Finance Act, 2017	Whether unconstitutional as per SC ruling?
Limits on political contribution – Proviso to Sec 182(1)	Aggregate value of contribution to political parties cannot exceed 7.5% of 3-years’ average net profits	No maximum limit on political contributions	Yes. The SC concluded removal of limits to be “manifest arbitrariness” for removing a classification without recognising the harms thereof.
Disclosure in financial statements – Section 182(3)	Contributor company to disclose names of each parties against the total amount contributed to such parties	Only total amount contributed to be disclosed, without disclosing names	Yes. The SC concluded this to be an “essential” information for effective exercise of voting, and hence, non-disclosure as an infringement to the right of information of voter under Article 19(1)(a) of COI
Mode of contribution – Section 182(3A)	New insertion pursuant to Finance Act	Political contributions to be made only through banking channels (account paying cheque/ bank draft/ ECS) and through instruments issued under a scheme for political contributions (electoral bonds)	No impact. However, the Electoral Bond Scheme has been declared to be unconstitutional.

Consequences for donor companies

The SC ruling does not declare “political donations” per se as unconstitutional or invalid, what is rendered violative of constitutional rights is the Electoral Bond Scheme and the amendments to section 182 of CA vide Finance Act, 2017 permitting unlimited and anonymous contributions to political parties.

The legal implications of declaring a statute unconstitutional has been discussed in various rulings in the past, such as, re Behram Khurshid Pesikaka v. State of Bombay, and others. These say the consequences are dealt with by the court only. In the present matter of Electoral Bond Scheme, the SC has directed SBI and the Election Commission of India to disclose the details of contributions received through electoral bonds, and refund the non-encashed amounts to the donor.

In essence it does not seem apt that any burden will be cast upon companies for going by a law which was valid till it was scrapped. Hence, no adverse implications should follow for the donor companies. However, for the sake of its corporate duty, a company which has contributed in the past may now do a disclosure in the forthcoming annual report. Thus, The omission of disclosure of particulars of political donations made along with names of the parties, between FY 2017-18 to FY 2022-23, may be made good by companies in the financial statement for the FY 2023-24 giving details of contribution made along with names of the political parties for each of the previous financial years, along with the current FY 23-24.

Principle of “manifest arbitrariness”

Having reference to various rulings and judicial precedents, the SC has summarized that the doctrine of “manifest arbitrariness” can be imposed to strike down a provision. Such a proposition can be applied where:

the legislature fails to make a classification by recognizing the degrees of harm, and
the purpose is not in consonance with constitutional values.

In the context of permitting unlimited contribution to political parties, on the grounds of removing classification between donations by “individuals” v/s “companies”, or between “loss making companies” and “profit making companies”, the degree of potential harm has been ignored. Section 182 was enacted to curb corruption in electoral financing, however, the amendment allowed companies, incorporated for a specific purpose as per their MoA, to contribute unlimited amounts to political parties without any accountability and scrutiny. This may also facilitate incorporation of “shell companies” solely for the purpose of making such political contributions and permit undue influence of companies in the electoral process, thus violating the principle of free and fair elections and political equality.

The hon’ble SC has ruled the deletion of maximum limit as “violative” of COI and “manifestly arbitrary” for not recognising the degrees of harm in removing the classification between –

Political donations by “companies” and “individuals” where the ability to influence electoral process is much higher with the former, since “Contributions made by individuals have a degree of support or affiliation to a political association. However, contributions made by companies are purely business transactions, made with the intent of securing benefits in return.”
“Profit-making” and “loss-making companies” for the purposes of political contributions, since “it is more plausible that loss-making companies will contribute to political parties with a quid pro quo and not for the purpose of income tax benefits.”

The present SC ruling quashes the anonymous political donations and the amendments in CA permitting unlimited corporate donations to political parties. Political donations are not unconstitutional, however a company, making such donations, shall ensure the same does not result into emptying the resources of the company while also ensuring transparency in disclosure of such political donations in its financial statements for the right of information of the concerned shareholders as well as larger stakeholder and voter base.

LEAP to listing: India permits direct listing of shares overseas through IFSC

January 25, 2024/0 Comments/in Corporate Laws, FEMA, IFSC, MCA /by Team Corplaw

MCA & MOF notify rules for the same

– Vinita Nair & Prapti Kanakia | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

January 25, 2024 (Updated on August 31, 2024)

Indian companies were permitted to raise funds from overseas either pursuant to issue of depository receipts listed overseas or having the non-residents subscribe to issuances made in India or by way of borrowing overseas. As an initiative to provide an avenue to access global capital markets, GoI had announced the decision to ease the raising of foreign funds in order to boost foreign investment inflows, unlock growth opportunities, and offer flexibility to Indian companies to raise funds. Consequently, an enabling provision for direct listing of prescribed class of securities on permitted stock exchanges in permissible foreign jurisdictions was inserted vide Companies (Amendment) Act, 2020 in Section 23 of Companies Act, 2013 (‘CA, 2013’), that deals with permissible modes of issue of securities, vide notification dated September 28, 2020, and made effective from October 30, 2023. Thereafter, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) notified Companies (Listing of equity shares in permissible jurisdictions) Rules, 2024 (‘LEAP Rules’) effective from January 24, 2024. As listing of shares abroad will result in raising funds from Persons Resident Outside India (PROI), Ministry of Finance (‘MoF’) notified FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Amendment Rules, 2024 amending FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’) with effect from January 24, 2024. SEBI is also expected to roll out the operational guidelines for listed companies to list their equity shares on permitted stock exchanges.^[1]

Additionally, FAQs on direct listing scheme (FAQs) have also been rolled out on January 24, 2024. Further, two of the key recommendations of the working group report on Direct Listing of Listed Indian Companies on IFSC Exchanges submitted in December 2023 were to notify the rules under Section 23 (3) and (4) of CA, 2013 and notify necessary amendments in NDI Rules to permit cross-jurisdiction issuance and trading of equity shares of Indian companies on IFSC exchanges.

Presently, both the LEAP Rules as well as NDI Rules have notified International Financial Services Centre in India (‘Gift City’) as the permissible jurisdiction and India International Exchange and NSE International Exchange (‘IFSC Exchanges’) as the permissible stock exchange. International Financial Services Centres Authority (‘IFSCA’) had issued the IFSCA (Listing) Regulations, 202 4 effective August 29, 2024 (‘IFSC Regulations’) however, in the absence of enabling provision under CA, 2013 and NDI Rules, Indian companies were unable to undertake listing of securities abroad.

In this article we provide an overview of the regulatory regime and deal with the procedural aspect.

Regulatory regime for listing securities in IFSC

Chapter X of the NDI Rules permits investment by a permissible holder subject to conditions specified in Schedule XI. Schedule XI inter-alia provides the permissible mode of issuance, eligibility conditions for a permissible holder and Indian companies, obligations of the companies and requirements relating to voting rights and pricing.

LEAP Rules prescribe the eligibility norms for unlisted public companies and procedural aspects in relation to timeline and form for filing the prospectus, complying with Indian Accounting Standards post listing etc.

The IFSC Regulations provide the general conditions w.r.t the principles and eligibility criteria for issuer, specific eligibility criteria for IPO, procedural requirements in case of an entity freshly listing on IFSC exchanges (Chapters I, II, III) and also norms for secondary listing of specified securities (Chapter V). Chapter VI deals with listing of special purpose acquisition companies (SPAC). Comparison of the requirements under IFSC Regulations vis-a-vis under ICDR Regulations is enclosed as Annexure 1.

Mode of Listing

Companies can raise the funds either by issuing fresh capital or by offering the existing shares. In the latter case, the existing shareholders tender their shares. Both the methods are allowed under LEAP Rules & NDI Rules for listing the equity shares on IFSCA exchanges.

Figure 2: Mode of listing

Para 2 of Schedule I to NDI Rules prohibits certain sectors for investment, meaning the company engaged in prohibited sector is not allowed to raise foreign funds^[2]. The same conditions are applicable in case of listing in IFSC either by way of fresh issuance/offer for sale. Eg. Nidhi company is a prohibited sector and therefore the nidhi company cannot list its equity share in IFSC.

Further, Schedule I to NDI Rules prescribes sectoral caps which are required to be complied by the public Indian company at the time of direct listing. Refer Cap on Foreign Funds for further details.

Companies ineligible to list in IFSC

NDI Rules, LEAP Rules, and IFSC Regulations provide certain eligibility criteria for companies intending to list the specified securities on permissible stock exchanges. The same are discussed below:

Companies ineligible under LEAP Rules

LEAP Rules are applicable to both unlisted public companies and listed public companies, however, the eligibility criteria under LEAP Rules are applicable to unlisted public companies only. Rule 5 of LEAP Rules provides that the following companies shall not be eligible for listing the equity shares in IFSC;

Figure 3: Companies ineligible under LEAP Rules

Companies ineligible under NDI Rules

Para 3 of Schedule XI to NDI Rules provides the eligibility criteria for direct listing. Para 3(1) & 3(3) is applicable to unlisted public companies and para 3(1) & 3(2) is applicable to listed companies. The eligibility conditions are based on the type of issuance i.e. fresh issuance or offer for sale.

In case of fresh issuance, the following companies are ineligible:

Figure 4: Companies ineligible under NDI Rules, in case of fresh issuance

Most of the conditions above are similar to those provided in Reg. 5, 61, 102, etc. of SEBI (ICDR) Regulations, 2018 (‘ICDR Regulations’) except for the ineligibility arising on account of inspection or investigation under CA, 2013. Chapter XIV of CA, 2013 deals with the requirements relating to inspection, inquiry, and investigation. The Registrar of Companies is empowered to carry out inspection in terms of Section 206 of CA, 2013 and on the basis of the outcome of the same or for other reasons specified in Section 210, the Central Government may order an investigation. In case of inspection or investigation, it is likely that the same may continue for a longer period without any tangible outcome. In such cases, this restriction will act as a deterrent for the companies eligible otherwise. Additionally, reg. 5 (2) of ICDR Regulations, an issuer is not eligible to make an initial public offer if there are any outstanding convertible securities or any other right which would entitle any person with any option to receive equity shares of the issuer. There is no such similar restriction under IFSC Regulations.

The following companies are ineligible, in case of offer for sale by existing shareholders:

Figure 5: Companies ineligible under NDI Rules, in case of offer for sale

Companies Ineligible under IFSC Regulations

Companies incorporated in India/IFSC/foreign jurisdiction are allowed to list on IFSC Exchanges, however, the issuer, any of its promoters, controlling shareholders, directors or existing shareholders offering shares should not be

debarred from accessing the capital market; or
a wilful defaulter; or
a fugitive economic offender

Further, Regulation 9 of IFSC Regulation prescribes certain eligibility criteria for listing such as operating revenue, minimum market capitalization, PBT, etc. (Refer our article IFSC Gateway to Global Access for Indian unlisted companies to understand the conditions in detail). Hence, the entities that are not ineligible as per LEAP Rules, NDI Rules, and IFSCA Regulations and fulfilling the eligibility criteria of IFSC Regulation can list its equity shares in IFSC Exchanges.

Permissible holder

Para 2 of Schedule XI to NDI Rules provides the eligibility criteria for the permissible holders of equity shares listed on permissible stock exchanges. Any Person Resident Outside India (‘PROI’) can be a permissible holder. Thus, an Indian resident cannot hold such shares, however a non-resident Indian can hold such shares (FAQ no. 15 & 16). The said conditions are also applicable to a beneficial owner.^[3]

Where a holder is a citizen of a country which shares land border with India, or an entity incorporated in such a country, or an entity whose beneficial owner is from such a country, they can hold equity shares of such a public Indian company only with the approval of the Central Government.

To ensure that the investor is aware of the above conditions of the permissible holders, the Indian company is required to indicate the same in its offer document issued while raising funds in Gift City.

Voting rights on such equity shares will be exercised directly by the permissible holder or through their custodian pursuant to voting instruction only from such permissible holder.

As per RBI Master Directions – Liberalized Remittance Scheme (LRS) investments in IFSCs in securities except those issued by entities or companies in India (outside IFSC) were permitted. RBI Circular dated July 10, 2024 permits availing of financial services or financial products^[4] (which inter alia includes securities)within IFSC. However, this cannot be construed to override the eligibility of ‘permissible holder’ prescribed under NDI Rules.

Investment Limit for permissible holder

A permissible holder can invest upto the limits prescribed for foreign portfolio investors i.e. less than 10% of the total paid-up equity capital on a fully diluted basis. That means one single investor can hold less than 10% of the equity share capital on a fully diluted basis of the public Indian Company.

Manner of Purchase/Sale

A permissible holder is allowed to pay the purchase/subscription consideration either to a bank account in India or deposited in a foreign currency account of the Indian company held in accordance with the FEM (Foreign currency accounts by a person resident in India) Regulations, 2015, as amended from time to time.

In case of a sale, the consideration may be remitted out of India or can be credited to the bank account of the permissible holder maintained in accordance with FEM (Deposit) Regulations, 2016 i.e. NRO/ NRE/ FNCR/ SNRR account.

Cap on Foreign Funds

Schedule I to NDI Rules provides the sectoral caps, i.e. the maximum foreign investment permissible in a particular sector. The said conditions are to be complied in case of listing on permitted stock exchanges as well since, listing on IFSC will result in raising funds from PROI. Accordingly, amounts offered to PROI in permissible jurisdiction along with equity shares held in India by PROI should be compliant of the sectoral cap. The aggregate amount held by PROI should not exceed the limits prescribed.

Further, wherever Government approval is required under Schedule I, the same shall be obtained while raising funds from permitted foreign exchange. Eg. in case of print media, foreign investment upto 26% is permitted under government route, therefore a company engaged in print media business can raise only upto 26% from permitted stock exchanges after obtaining requisite approval.

Also, the company has the option of receiving the funds either in the bank account maintained in India or in the foreign currency account maintained outside India. Indian companies are allowed to keep funds in the foreign currency account maintained with the Bank outside India, until its utilization or repatriation to India.

Pricing of Equity Shares

Para 6 of Schedule XI to NDI Rules provides for pricing of equity shares to be listed on the permitted stock exchange. LEAP Rules does not prescribe any pricing conditions.

Figure 6: Pricing of equity shares

Other actionable

The unlisted public company is required to file the prospectus in form LEAP-1 with ROC within a period of seven days after the same has been finalised and filed in the permitted exchange.
Post listing, the company will be required to prepare the financial statements as per Ind AS in addition to any other accounting standard, if applicable.
The Indian company will be required to report to RBI through AD Banks in form LEC (FII) about the purchase/subscription of equity shares listed on IFSC Exchanges.^[5]

Direct listing overseas v/s depository receipts

Issuance of depository receipts is governed by Depository Receipt Scheme, 2014 read with FEMA NDI Rules and SEBI’s framework for issue of depository receipts. The regime is different from the issue of ADR/ GDR and listing on overseas exchanges.

While the Scheme provided for any Indian company being eligible to issue depository receipts, SEBI restricted the eligibility to issue only by ‘a company incorporated in India and listed on a recognised stock exchange in India’. Therefore, unlisted entities are not eligible to issue depository receipts.
Mode of listing of DRs are similar to present regime i.e. fresh issuance or OFS of permissible securities.
There are 8 permissible jurisdictions for ADR/GDR issuance^[6] as compared to just IFSC in case of direct listing.
The concept of permissible holder for depository receipts is similar to permissible holder in the context of direct listing (discussed above) such that residents are not eligible to hold the same even as a beneficial owner. In case of depository receipts, even NRIs are ineligible to invest. However, as clarified by SEBI vide circular dated December 18, 2020 issue of DRs to NRIs is permitted pursuant to share based employee benefit schemes which are implemented by a company in terms of SEBI (Share Based Employee Benefits) Regulations 2014^[7] and pursuant to a bonus issue or a rights issue;
The norms relating to pricing and voting rights are also on similar lines in both cases.

Status after listing

In case of direct listing, Indian companies would be listing its ‘equity shares’ and/or ‘convertible securities’. The Companies Act, 2013 defines the term ‘listed company’ as a company which has any of its securities listed on any recognised stock exchange. However, clause (c) of Rule 2A of the Companies (Specifications of Definitions Details) Rules, 2014 (‘SDD Rules’) provides that public companies which have not listed their equity shares on a recognized stock exchange but whose equity shares are listed on a stock exchange in a jurisdiction as specified in sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Act shall not be considered as a listed company.

Therefore, the status of an unlisted public company will not change upon direct listing and consequently, the additional compliances as applicable to a listed company under CA, 2013 will not apply to such company in view of express carve-out in terms of the SDD rules.

However, every Indian company getting its securities listed on stock exchanges in IFSC will be required to comply with Chapter XII^[8] of the IFSC Regulations dealing with listing obligations and disclosure requirements, as applicable.

Minimum Public Shareholding Requirement

Securities Contracts (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (‘SCR Rules’) mandates listed companies in India to have a minimum public shareholding (MPS) of atleast 25% of each kind of equity shares.

On the requirement for minimum offer and allotment to public, Ministry of Finance vide notification dated 28th August, 2024, amended Rule 19 of SCR Rules prescribing a minimum of 10% irrespective of the post issue paid up capital (as opposed to 25% applicable to listed entities in India) for companies intending to list their securities on recognized stock exchanges in IFSC. Further, the continuous listing requirement in Rule 19A has also been amended prescribing MPS requirement of atleast 10%. In case it falls below 10% at any time, the company will be required to bring the public shareholding to 10% within a maximum period of 12 months from the date of such fall^[9].

In this regard, the working group committee suggested that the public holding fulfilling the definition of public shareholding as per SCR Rules^[10] should be considered towards MPS and such requirements should be complied in both jurisdictions separately to ensure free float in both jurisdictions. Basis the recommendations, the working group committee recommended making appropriate changes in the SCR Rule. In view of the aforesaid amendment, it seems that MPS norms are required to be separately maintained.

Tax incentives available to permissible holders

Non-residents i.e. permissible holders are exempt from the applicability of capital gains tax in case of transfer of foreign currency denominated equity shares of a company where the consideration is payable in foreign currency pursuant to Section 47(viiab) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Notification dated 5th March, 2020. Also, Securities Transaction Tax, Commodities Transaction Tax, and stamp duty in respect of transactions carried out on IFSC exchanges is exempt.

Conclusion

The initiative is quite encouraging and will benefit India Inc. in fundraising, however, the ineligibility on account of pending inspection/investigation needs to be revisited. The requirements post listing, as per IFSC Regulations are also numerous, several of them being on similar lines as provided under Listing Regulations.

^[1] As per the press release by PIB.

^[2] Prohibited sectors include- Lottery business, Gambling and betting, Chit funds, Nidhi company, Trading in TDR, (a) Real estate business or construction of farm houses, Manufacturing of cigars, cheroots, cigarillos and cigarettes, of tobacco or of tobacco substitutes, Atomic energy, Railway operations, Foreign technology collaborations in any form for lottery business and gambling and betting activities.

^[3] Beneficial owner as defined as per proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005

^[4] “financial product” means—(i) securities; (ii) contracts of insurance; (iii) deposits; (iv) credit arrangements; (v) foreign currency contracts other than contracts to exchange one currency for another that are to be settled immediately; and (vi) any other product or instrument that may be notified by the Central Government from time to time.

^[5] Inserted vide FEM (Mode of Payment and Reporting of NonDebt Instruments) (Amendment) Regulations, 2024

^[6] 1. United States of America – NASDAQ, NYSE 2. Japan – Tokyo Stock Exchange 3. South Korea – Korea Exchange Inc. 4. United Kingdom excluding British Overseas Territories- London Stock Exchange 5. France – Euronext Paris 6. Germany – Frankfurt Stock Exchange 7. Canada – Toronto Stock Exchange 8. International Financial Services Centre in India – India International Exchange, NSE International Exchange.

^[7] The onus of identification of NRIs holders, who are issued DRs in terms of employee benefit scheme, would lie with the listed company. The listed company is required to provide the information of such NRI DR holders to the designated depository for the purpose of monitoring of limits.

^[8] Part A: General Obligations; Part B: Companies with Specified Securities Listed on Recognised Stock Exchanges as a Primary Listing and Part C: Secondary Listing of Specified Securities.

^[9] Manner of achieving MPS has been prescribed vide SEBI Circular dated February 3, 2023.

^[10]Rule 2(e) of SCR Rules defines public shareholding as equity shares of the company held by public including shares underlying the depository receipts if the holder of such depository receipts has the right to issue voting instruction and such depository receipts are listed on an international exchange in accordance with the Depository Receipts Scheme, 2014.

Provided that the equity shares of the company held by the trust set up for implementing employee benefit schemes under the regulations framed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India shall be excluded from public shareholding.

Felicitation Meet and Panel Discussion on Corporate Governance – from 1988 to Now

December 25, 2023/0 Comments/in Companies Act 2013, Corporate Laws, SEBI, Training & Workshops /by Staff

Register here

Agenda for the Panel Discussion

About the Book

Live on Youtube

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

|

Open in new tab

Download as PDF [2.03 MB]

Presentation on Significant Beneficial Owners (for companies & LLPs)

December 12, 2023/0 Comments/in Companies Act 2013, Corporate Laws /by Team Corplaw

Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

|

Open in new tab

Download as PDF [1.34 MB]

Our article corner on SBO: https://vinodkothari.com/article-corner-on-sbos/

Directors’ Responsibility towards Climate Change: Lessons from Recent Litigation

December 9, 2023/0 Comments/in Companies Act 2013, Corporate Laws, LODR, SEBI, Sustainability, Sustainability /by Payal Agarwal

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

|

Open in new tab

Download as PDF [466.69 KB]

Online workshop on Significant Beneficial Owners: For Companies and LLPs

November 20, 2023/0 Comments/in Companies Act 2013, Corporate Laws, MCA /by Team Corplaw

Click here to register for the workshop: https://forms.gle/3vdQjaLJY1Sgs4Ps5

Resource Centre on SBOs

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

|

Open in new tab

Download as PDF [352.15 KB]

SBOs behind LLPs all set to be surfaced

November 20, 2023/0 Comments/in Amendments to the Companies Act 2013, Companies Act 2013, Corporate Laws, LLP /by Team Corplaw

– Avinash Shetty, Asst. Manager & Hari Dwivedi, Executive (corplaw@vinodkothari.com)

Introduction

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (‘MCA’) in the year 2018, introduced the provision for declaration by individuals identified as Significant Beneficial Owners (‘SBOs’) for companies under section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’). Subsequently, MCA extended the ambit of the said provisions to Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) through notification dated February 11, 2022. However, the notification prompted concerns and queries regarding the implementation of SBO provisions on LLPs. These concerns have been addressed by the recent notification dated November 9, 2023 (‘LLP SBO Rules’). The rationale behind this extension is to align the framework for identification of SBO’s of LLPs with that of companies.

While the provisions are on similar lines as that brought for companies under the Act, however, the difference is mostly in terms of the manner of determining the SBOs in case of LLPs. In case of LLPs it is calculated based on holding of capital contribution (shares in case of companies), voting rights in respect of management or policy decisions of LLP (shares in case of companies) and right to receive or participate in distributable profits (dividend in case of companies) or any other distribution besides, the right to exercise control or significantly influence in any manner other than direct holdings.

The article explains the requirements of the LLP SBO Rules, obligations of the LLPs, and the actionables to be taken in order to comply with the requirements.