FAQs on Type-I NBFC Registration Exemption
– Anita Baid, Dayita Kanodia & Chirag Agarwal | finserv@vinodkothari.com
– Anita Baid, Dayita Kanodia & Chirag Agarwal | finserv@vinodkothari.com
-Anita Baid & Dayita Kanodia | finserv@vinodkothari.com
RBI, on May 5, 2026, came out with the draft directions on Specified Non-financial Assets (SNFA). These directions have been introduced with the intent of specifying the treatment of non-financial and non-banking assets, particularly immovable property, acquired by the lender in satisfaction of their claims on the borrower.
It is relevant to note that a common framework has been introduced for banks and NBFC, which is in contradiction to the recent consolidation approach adopted by the Department of Regulations. This could possibly also create confusion as to the treatment of non-banking assets relevant for banks, being referred to under the common framework, to be also made applicable on NBFC. In case of banks, the Banking Regulations Act prohibits banks from holding such non-banking assets (NBAs) beyond a period of 7 years, except for property acquired for own use.
Our comments on the key proposals have been provided below:
VKC comment: This would mean that movable property, like vehicles, equipment, is not being covered under the purview of these regulations. Further, the restriction on banks as provided under the BR Act to acquire any immovable assets other than assets put to its own use should not apply to NBFCs.
VKC comment: This could be practically challenging since in certain adverse situations (like fraud classification) the RE may not want to wait for the asset to turn into an NPA before repossession is done. However, practically, evaluation and classification as fraud would easily take 90 days.
Further, the fact that all other means of recovery has been explored and deemed unviable would be very subjective to establish.
VKC comment: It is understood that any compromise settlement of the dues would be done as per the extant regulations for banks and NBFCs (as the case may be) and the amount outstanding post such settlement shall be considered to determine the remaining claims, if any.
At each subsequent reporting date, the SNFA shall be carried on the balance sheet at the lower of the last available distress sale value, or the revised NBV (value of extinguished exposure, net of the notional provisions applicable had the exposure continued on the books of the RE).
VKC Comment: The accounting treatment of the SNFA should have been governed as per the provisions of the accounting standards (para 3.2.23 of Ind AS 109). There could be a possible conflict since the accounting standards require the asset to be recognised on fair value.
VKC Comment: This is consistent with the IRAC provisions which requires the RE to shift from accrual accounting to cash basis accounting upon the asset turning into an NPA.
VKC Comment: SARFAESI is applicable to NBFCs having an asset size of more than 100 crore and where the outstanding amount is a minimum of ₹20 L. Accordingly, in some cases, SARFAESI may not be applicable at all. In such cases, following SARFAESI procedures should ideally not be made mandatory.
VKC Comments: Even under IBC, 29A bars the borrower and its connected persons from bidding on the repossessed assets (except for certain exemptions in case of MSME borrowers).
the asset shall be deemed to have been employed for its own use by the RE and will be recorded as a fixed asset.
VKC Comments: It seems unclear if the RE concerned can put the assets to its own use immediately on the acquisition of such assets.
Also, read our article,
RBI has vide its Press Releases – Reserve Bank of India proposed to review methodology for identification of NBFCs in Upper Layer. The key changes are as follows:
It may be noted that NBFCs belonging to the banking group are also required to comply with the compliance requirements applicable to Upper Layer NBFCs (except the listing requirement). Our article on compliances to be followed by such NBFCs in the banking group can be seen here.
A crucial question that arises here is whether the consolidation criteria (multiple NBFCs in the group) be applicable in this case as well to determine the asset size? Though as per prudence, it should apply, to avoid surpassing the regulatory intent, however, the same is specifically not applicable as per the SBR Directions (refer para 21) .
It may be noted that the category of NBFC is not a pre-condition, hence, the list of UL NBFCs would include not just NBFC-ICCs but also HFCs, CICs, deposit taking NBFCs, and not even Govt. NBFCs
Once the proposed criteria are implemented and the new list of Upper Layer NBFCs is notified by the RBI, entities classified as NBFC-UL will face certain immediate implications, in addition to specific corporate governance norms. The central point of discussion is how these requirements might impact the growth plans of large NBFCs.
While CET 1 is currently manageable for most existing UL entities, aggressive growth plans could potentially make this a constraining factor for larger NBFCs newly classified as UL.
Leverage ratio would have been an issue if the entity was engaged in derivatives transactions. However, most of the NBFCs in India are not very active in this space.
The applicability of the large exposure framework may be a real concern. Large exposure framework looks at economic interdependence as the basis of classification into group risk. There is an absolute limit that the single party exposure cannot be more than 20% of Tier 1 capital (including quarterly audited profits) and 25% in case of a group of counterparties.
– RBI’s 1st April circular bars Banks from INR-derivatives, with “related parties”, giving an Ind AS meaning to the term
In a move to maintain the integrity of INR in the evolving market conditions and avoid a potential misuse of intra-group structures to bypass regulatory constraints, the RBI has issued revised instructions on Risk Management and Inter-Bank Dealings.
Considering the prevailing situation in the currency market, RBI has prohibited banks from entering into derivatives involving INR on non-deliverable basis.
The bar extends to rebooking of any derivative contract, whether deliverable or non deliverable, entered before 1st April, maturing after this date.
The instructions prohibit any form of foreign exchange derivative contract involving INR with their related parties. Note that, the bar is not limited to “non-deliverable” contracts, rather, extends to all forex derivative contracts involving INR. This complete bar is likely to impact the financial markets where it is quite common to undertake such derivative transactions with related parties, more particularly, in banking groups constituting one or more financial sector entities (including NBFCs, insurance entities etc.).
What is even more interesting is that the meaning of “related party” for this purpose is drawn from Ind AS. Banks in India are currently not following Ind AS, and therefore, they maintain a list of related parties as per IGAAP, viz., AS 18. However, the Circular explicitly refers to Ind AS 24 or equivalent international standards. This, therefore, requires immediate action on the part of banks to draw a list of related parties, not on the basis of the accounting standards applicable to them (AS-18), but, on the basis of the widely recognised IAS-24 (Ind AS 24 in the Indian context).
The instructions refer to Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 24 – Related Party Disclosures or International Accounting Standard (IAS) 24 – Related Party Disclosures or any other equivalent accounting standards. The reference thus, is not of “applicable accounting standards”, but of “equivalent accounting standards”, meaning thereby, that banks would be required to draw their list of related parties based on Ind AS 24 or its equivalent based on the country whose accounting standards are being followed by the bank in question. For instance, a foreign bank incorporated in the US will draw its definition of related party from US GAAP (ASC 850) being the equivalent of IAS 24.
-Vinod Kothari and Chirag Agarwal | finserv@vinodkothari.com
The National Credit Guarantee Trust Company (NCGTC), under the Department of Financial Services, has floated a scheme which will guarantee lending upto ₹20000 crores by banks and financial institutions (Member Lending Institutions or MLIs), for taking incremental loan exposure to MFIs. The Scheme intends to nudge bank lending to MFIs, as the former has shunned away in view of the perceived risk of the sector in the recent past. The NCGTC takes 70% – 80% risk of default of the bank loans to the MFIs, provided the lending is done accordingly with the conditions of the Scheme.
Among the conditions, the MFI must lend at least at 1% lower than the average lending rate over the last 6 months, and the MLI must lend at no more than 2% over the benchmark rate (MCLR or EBLR as applicable).
In our view, the Scheme has following outcome expectations:
Who are MLIs?
What type of loans are covered under the Scheme?
What is the interest cap under the Scheme?
What is the cap on tenure of loans under the Scheme?
Conditions for MLIs to get benefits under the Scheme:
Maximum coverage under the guarantee:
Guarantee Fee:
Claim Process:
The RBI’s proposed relief to exempt pure investment companies from exemption from regulation is not a cakewalk but a hurdle race. It is not an exemption that comes in auto mode; you need to earn the right to be exempt. Some of the important pre-conditions that the RBI has proposed are:


| Type of NBFC | Options Available |
| NBFCs holding Type I Registration as on April 1, 2026 | Option 1: Apply for deregistration Option 2: Continue to remain as Type I NBFC |
| Entities that fulfil the conditions for Unregistered Type I NBFC, after April 1, 2026 | Option 1: Satisfy the conditions under 66A and remain unregistered [see box on Conditions Subsequent] Option 2: Apply for registration as Type I NBFC |
| NBFCs not having a customer interface and public funds and having an asset size below ₹1000 crores, but not registered as Type I | Option 1: Apply for deregistration Option 2: Apply for registration as Type I NBFC to avail regulatory exemptionOption 3: Maintain status quo |
| NBFCs not having a customer interface and public funds and having asset size above ₹1000 crores, but not registered as Type I | Option 1: Apply for registration as NBFC Type I Option 2: Apply for registration as NBFC Type II, in case of changes in business model |
Several NBFCs that have been registered with the RBI before the concept of Type 1 was introduced in 2016 may not have the CoR as a Type 1 NBFC in spite of the fact that as on date they don’t have access to public funds nor any customer interface. Such an NBFC with an asset size less than ₹1000 crores will still have an option to apply for deregistration, subject to the satisfaction of the conditions prescribed. However, such NBFCs in case they decide to maintain the status quo will not be eligible for the regulatory exemption available to Type 1 NBFCs.
If an entity carries investment activity with owned funds, within a limit of ₹1000 crores, does it need RBI registration? The answer seems to be – no. Such a company obviously does not have to go through the rigour of seeking registration first, and then qualifying for an exemption.
The company in question still has to satisfy the exemption conditions; and the auditor will need to give an exception report. The meaning of exception report is that if there is a breach of any of the conditions of exemption, or there is any breach of any other provisions of the law, the auditor shall be required to make an exception report.
Notably, CARO Order also requires auditors to comment on adherence to RBI regulations, which, in future, will include these conditions too.
Is the requirement of asset size being within ₹1000 crores based on stand-alone financial statements, or will the assets of companies within the group be aggregated, as is done for the purpose of determination of the middle layer status of companies?
It seems that the aggregation requirement is not there for the Type 1 exemption.
The basis for this is FAQ 13, which states as follows:
Q13. As per regulations of the Reserve Bank, total assets of all the NBFCs in a Group are consolidated to determine the classification of NBFCs in the Middle 11 Layer. What shall be the treatment given to ‘Type I NBFCs’ and ‘Unregistered Type I companies’ in this regard?
Ans: For aggregation purposes, the asset size of ‘Type I NBFCs’ shall be considered but asset size of ‘Unregistered Type I NBFCs’ shall not be considered. It is emphasized that ‘Type I NBFCs’ shall always be classified in Base Layer regardless of such aggregation.
Are the exemption conditions, that there is no access to public funds and no customer interface, merely a statement of intent, or must also be borne out by the conduct in any of the past 3 financial years? Looking at the definition in para 6 (14A), which reads “Not accepting public funds and not intending to accept public funds”, and likewise, “Not having customer interface and not intending to have customer interface”, it appears that the exemption conditions are both a statement of fact as well as intent. If one is negated by the fact, a mere statement of intent may not help.
However, assume there are isolated instances of intra-group loans taken or intra-group loans given. The transactions are not indicating a “business model”, at least the ones on the asset side. Are we saying that the breach of the conditions of “no public funds” and “no customer interface”, at any time during the last 3 years, will disentitle the exemption?
We do NOT think so. There are two reasons to say this:
In our view, since the deregistration application has to be made within September 30, 2026, the audited financials for FY 25-26 must have been prepared. Hence, the last three financial years that would be considered are FY 23-24, 24-25 and 25-26.
It is usually hard to get a relief from a regulator, as relief is seen as a prize that you earn. If the idea was based on the premise that what does not matter for the financial system, and is still being regulated, is a burden both for the regulator and for the regulated, there would have been a more welcoming approach to exemption. Specifically:
– Dayita Kanodia & Siddharth Pandey | finserv@vinodkothari.com
Budget 2026 proposed to introduce Total Return Swaps (TRS) for corporate bonds, purportedly as a measure for synthetic trading in corporate bonds. However, given the very slow pick up of credit default swaps, the much easier and globally prevalent version of credit derivatives, will the more esoteric TRS really make a difference? We explain what TRS is, how it differs from a CDS, give a sense of the global data on TRS as a part of OTC credit derivatives, and discuss how much the new measure will impact India’s bond market.
On February 6, RBI, in furtherance of the announcement in the Statement on Developmental and Regulatory Policies dated February 6, 2026, issued the draft revised Master Direction – RBI (Credit Derivatives) Directions, 2022. (‘Draft CD Directions’). The Draft CD Directions permit TRS to be issued to eligible persons.
India’s credit derivatives market has historically remained shallow, with hardly any transanctions involving credit default swaps. This has resulted in limited hedging options focused only on default risk and an absence of tools for transferring market and price risk.
This contrasts sharply with global trends. As of mid-2025, the notional outstanding volume of OTC derivatives exceeded USD 840 trillion, with credit derivatives, despite being smaller in absolute size than interest rate or FX derivatives, recording the fastest year-on-year growth at approximately 23%.
It may be noted that as of 1996, which is when credit derivatives had almost started emerging and gaining strength, TRS transactions were significant and took up almost 32% of the market share. However, the percentage of TRS dropped. Over time, CDSs overtook the position because CDSs are more definitive and limit the risks of the protection seller. In 2025, as per 118th edition of the OCC’s Quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities based on call report information provided by all insured U.S. commercial banks and others, the TRSs had become a smaller segment representing 4.9 per cent of the credit derivative market.
In simple terms, a TRS swap transfers the entire volatility of returns of a reference asset from one party to another. TRS is a kind of derivative contract wherein the protection buyer agrees to transfer, periodically and throughout the term of the contract, the actual returns from a reference asset to the protection seller (“floating returns”), and the latter, in return, agrees to transfer returns calculated at a certain spread over a base rate (“fixed returns”) Total returns include the coupons, appreciation, and depreciation in the price of the reference bond. On the other hand, the protection seller will pay a certain base rate, say, risk free rate, plus a certain spread. The protection seller in the case of a TROR swap is also referred to as the total return receiver, and the protection buyer is similarly called the total return payer. The figure below illustrates the essential mechanics of a total return swap.

Impact of TRS
TRS swaps originate from synthetic equity structures, where economic returns of an asset are transferred without any actual investment in the underlying. The structure separates economic exposure from legal ownership. In a TROR swap, the economic impact is such that the total return receiver assumes the position of a synthetic lender to or investor in the bonds of the reference obligor, while the total return payer becomes a synthetic lender to the counterparty. Consider the illustration below:
Thus, the true impact of a TROR swap is the synthetic replacement of exposures. Consequently, the advantages of a TRS can be:
TRS structures have been used globally across a wide range of asset classes, including equities, bonds, loans, real estate and property interests, credit-linked notes, and portfolios or indices of such assets. Hence, a TRS is a credit derivative only when the reference asset is a credit asset, otherwise it is a generic total return derivative. The Draft CD Direction framework deliberately confines TRS usage to specified debt instruments in order to prevent synthetic funding and balance-sheet arbitrage.
| Aspects | CDS | TRS |
| Basic Definition | A credit derivative contract where a protection seller commits to pay the buyer in the event of a credit event. | A credit derivative contract where a payer transfers the entire economic performance of an asset to a receiver (protection seller). |
| Risk Transferred | Transfers only the credit risk associated with a specific obligation. The protection seller is only concerned with the risk of default or increase in credit spreads of the asset. That is, the reference transaction only shifts the risk of credit spreads | Transfers the total volatility of returns, including credit risk, interest rate risk, and market risk. The receiver gains exposure to all gains and losses (coupons, appreciation, and depreciation). |
| Cash Flow Mechanics | The buyer makes periodic premium payments to the seller until maturity or a credit event | Involves a periodic exchange of cash flow, the payer gives returns and appreciation; the receiver gives a benchmark rate + spread and depreciation. No fixed premium; the premium is inherent in the difference between actual returns and the agreed-upon spread |
| Synthetic Impact | Used primarily for credit insurance or hedging against specific default. | Used to synthetically replace the entire exposure of the parties, causing the receiver to assume the position of a synthetic lender to the reference obligation. |
Total Return Swaps can be categorized into several types based on their underlying assets and funding structures:
See further details on TRS in the book on Credit Derivatives and Structured Credit Trading by Mr Vinod Kothari
The Draft CD Directions permit the use of TRS while adding multiple safeguards to ensure that TRS functions strictly as a credit risk transfer instrument and not as a means of synthetic funding, balance-sheet arbitrage, or regulatory circumvention. The regulatory framework governs four key aspects:
Para 4.1.2(iii) of the revised Directions stipulates that at least one counterparty to every credit derivative transaction must be a market-maker. For this purpose, market-makers are defined to include
This requirement ensures that TRS transactions are intermediated by regulated entities with adequate risk management capabilities.
In alignment with this overarching requirement, the Draft CD Directions prescribe the following specific eligibility conditions for TRS:
In addition to prescribing eligible participants, the Draft CD Directions impose strict controls on the nature of reference entities and assets that may be used for TRS transactions. These controls are intended to ensure transparency, prevent regulatory arbitrage, and avoid the creation of complex or opaque synthetic exposures.
Reference entity:
A reference entity refers to the issuer whose credit risk and economic performance form the basis of the TRS contract. For TRS, the reference entity shall be a indian resident entity that is eligible to issue Reference assets under the Draft CD Directions.
By limiting reference entities to domestic issuers of eligible debt instruments, the framework ensures that TRS activity remains in the Indian corporate debt market, which was also the regulatory intent.
Reference assets:
A reference asset refers to the underlying corporate bond or debt instrument issued by the reference entity or an index of underlying debt instruments specified in a total return swap contract. The Draft CD Directions specify the following as eligible reference assets for TRS:
At the same time, the Directions expressly prohibit TRS on certain instruments, including asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, credit-enhanced or guaranteed bonds, convertible bonds, and other hybrid or structured obligations. This exclusion reflects regulatory caution against layering derivatives on complex or credit-enhanced products that could obscure risk transfer.
Index-based reference assets
The Draft CD Directions also permit a TRS to reference an index, provided that:
Although such index based reference asset has been introduced for CDS and TRS, no such index for debt securities exists currently. Accordingly, such an index must be developed.
Para 4.5.1(ii) of the Draft CD Directions expressly provides that market participants shall not undertake credit derivative transactions, including Total Return Swaps, involving reference entities, reference obligations, or reference assets where such transactions would result in exposures that the participant is not permitted to assume in the cash market, or where they would otherwise violate applicable regulatory restrictions. This provision prevents the use of TRS to bypass exposure limits, concentration norms, sectoral caps, or investment restrictions applicable to the participants.
Additional safeguards for TRS used for hedging
Where a TRS is entered into for the purpose of hedging, the market-maker is required to ensure that the user satisfies the following conditions:
These safeguards reinforce the principle that hedging-oriented TRS must remain strictly co-terminous and proportionate to the underlying exposure, thereby avoiding over-hedging or speculations. Further, the Draft CD Direction specify that the settlement rules and standard documentation will be specified by shall be specified by the Fixed Income Money Market and Derivatives Association of India (FIMMDA), in consultation with market participants. However, the market participants are allowed to, alternatively, use a standard master agreement for credit derivative contracts.
Will this new instrument have an impact on bond markets in India? The first instance of guidelines on credit derivatives was issued in 2011; this failed to have any impact at all. Then, after the report of the Working Group, new Credit Derivatives Directions were issued in 2022. These also, at least based on anecdotal market information, have not had any significant traction at all.
CDS is much more standardised than TRS; as we have noted above, TRS is only 4.9% of the global credit derivatives market. Will the Indian market, which has not yet picked up credit spread trading in the form of CDS, delve into a far more esoteric TRS trade? Was it based on any reasoned or surveyed market feedback that this regulatory change was inspired? These questions, a priori, are difficult to answer. However, like a new flavour of ice cream, you never know until you try it.
Other Resources:
– Dayita Kanodia, Assistant Manager | finserv@vinodkothari.com
Holding Companies whose primary intent is to invest in their group companies have lately faced a paradox with respect to the requirement of registration as a Core Investment Company (CIC).
CICs are entities whose principal activity is the acquisition and holding of investments in group companies, rather than engaging in external investments or lending exposure outside the group. Para 3 of the Reserve Bank of India (Core Investment Companies) Directions, 2025 (‘CIC Directions’) prescribes the quantitative thresholds for classification of an NBFC as a CIC. In terms thereof, an NBFC that holds not less than 90% of its net assets in the form of investments in group companies, of which at least 60% is in equity instruments, is classified as a CIC and is required to obtain registration from the RBI, unless exempted.
Conceptually, a CIC is a sub-category of a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) (para 3 of the CIC Directions), just like Housing Finance Companies, Micro Finance Institutions, etc. The threshold criteria that NBFCs are required to satisfy is the principal business criteria (PBC), pursuant to which at least 50% of the total assets of the entity must consist of financial assets and at least 50% of its total income must be derived from such financial assets.
The PBC has historically served as the foundational threshold for determining whether an entity is an NBFC. Once the entity satisfies this principal requirement of carrying out financial activity, the sub-category is to be determined based on its line of business, which, lately, has seen quite a varietty – fron tradtional variants such as investment and lending activities (ICC), to housing finance (HFC), to financing of receivables (Factoring companies), the more recent inclusions are account aggregators (AA), mortgage guarantee companies (MGCs), infrastructure finance compaies (IFC), etc. Each of these NBFCs first, and then they fall in their respective class. For instance, HFCs are a type of NBFCs that primarily focus on extending housing loans and hence, must have a minimum housing loan portfolio of 60% and an individual housing loan of 50%.
Accordingly, all categories of NBFCs must first be ascertained to be carrying out financial activities as their primary business, and thereafter, the specific product helps to determine the category. Consequently, holding companies or CICs should ideally also adhere to the 50-50 criteria first and thereafter meet the 90-60 criteria for CIC classification.
However, there is a common perception among the market participants that CICs, irrespective of meeting such PBC, in case they reach the 90-60 criteria, will be required to obtain registration as a CIC. Several news reports also note this perception.
This perception among the market participants that CICs are not required to adhere to the PBC criteria stems from para 17(3) of the CIC Directions, which explicitly provides that:
“CICs need not meet the principal business criteria for NBFCs as specified under paragraph 38 of the Reserve Bank of India (Non-Banking Financial Companies – Registration, Exemptions and Framework for Scale Based Regulation) Directions.”
It may be noted that the above-quoted provision, which has recently been made a part of the CIC Directions pursuant to the November 28 consolidation exercise, was earlier included in the FAQs released by RBI on CICs. FAQs are RBI staff views; whereas Directions or Regulations are a part of subordinate law; however, in the consolidation exercise, a whole lot of FAQs and circulars became a part of the Directions.
Going by the intent of the NBFC classification and categorisation, the above-quoted provisions seem more relevant for registered CICs, implying that CICs once registered need not meet the PBC on an ongoing basis. CICs predominantly hold investments in group companies and therefore satisfy the 90–60 thresholds, but often do not derive any financial income from such investments. Group investments, being strategic in nature, are rarely disposed of, and the dividend income from such investments depends on the dividend/payout ratio, which may be quite low. In several cases, such entities continue to earn income, say, by way of royalty for a group brand name. Even the slightest of non-financial income will seem to breach the PBC criteria, which may challenge the continuation of registration of the CIC as an NBFC. In order to redress this, the provision under para 17(3) of the CIC Directions provides that CICs need not meet the PBC criteria on an ongoing basis.
What is the basis of this argument? The definition of a CIC comes from para 3, which says as follows: “These directions shall be applicable to every Core Investment Company (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘CICs’ and individually as a ‘CIC’), that is to say, a non-banking financial company carrying on the business of acquisition of shares and securities, and which satisfies the following conditions.” Para 17 (3) is a note to Para 17, which apparently deals with conditions of continued registration.
Given that CIC is a category of NBFC, it would be counter-intuitive to say that the regulatory requirement requires holding companies to go for registration as a CIC even if they do not meet the PBC for an NBFC. In fact, if an entity is not an NBFC because it fails the principality of its business, it would not even come under the statutory ambit of the RBI by virtue of section 45-IC.
Accordingly, without going by just the text of the regulations, in our view, considering the regulatory intent, the following could be inferred:
Other Resources:
