Supreme Court clarifies the boundaries of “Inherent Powers” of NCLAT

/0 Comments/in , /by

CIRP Withdrawal in GLAS Trust Company LLC v BYJU Raveendran & Ors

– Barsha Dikshit, Partner | resolution@vinodkothari.com

It is a well-established principle that the exercise of inherent powers is permissible only in the absence of an express provision within the statutory framework. Also, that the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is not to be used as a mechanism for mere debt recovery.

In a recent ruling in GLAS Trust Company LLC vs. BYJU Raveendran & Ors[1]., the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) [2]that permitted withdrawal of CIRP post admission by NCLT, by exercising inherent powers under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules, 2016, despite existing statutory procedures for CIRP withdrawal. The matter arose from a dispute concerning the validity of a settlement, wherein a financial creditor objected to the source of settlement funds, asserting that it constituted preferential payment or amounted to round-tripping, thereby warranting judicial scrutiny under the insolvency framework.

The article analyses the impact of the ruling on the jurisdiction of NCLAT to deal with various matters related to the corporate debtor under insolvency or liquidation.

Read more →

Importance of Filing Timely Claims in IBC: A Guide for Government Departments

/0 Comments/in , /by

– Neha Malu, Deputy Associate | resolution@vinodkothari.com 

Introduction

In the landscape of corporate insolvency, the timely submission of claims by creditors is of paramount importance. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”) provides a structured process for dealing with corporate debtors in distress. This article highlights the necessity of adhering to prescribed timelines for claim submission and underscores the repercussions of delays, drawing on pertinent judicial rulings. Additionally, it offers a comprehensive overview for government departments on the process of filing claims under the IBC.

Now, in case of IBC, there are two stages- 

  1. Corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) stage, and
  2. Liquidation stage. 

Upon initiation of CIRP, an interim resolution professional is appointed who makes a public announcement in Form A within 3 days of his appointment. The respective creditors of the concerned corporate debtor are required to file their claims within the timeline specified herein below. However, it is to be noted that if the CIRP of the concerned corporate debtor fails, the creditors are also required to submit their claims once again in the liquidation process. 

Read more →

Interest Imbalance: Will the disproportionate interest Split in Loan Transfers be liable to withholding tax?

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

ITAT Ruling Clarifies Taxation on Disproportionate Interest share in Loan Transfers

– Dayita Kanodia | Finserv@vinodkothari.com

Direct Assignment of a loan or transfer of loan exposures refers to the process where financial institutions, such as banks, purchase a pool of loans or assets from other entities, typically NBFCs, without the involvement of a third-party intermediary. In this arrangement, the buying institution directly acquires the ownership of the loans or assets and the associated rights, including the right to receive future payments from the borrowers. This method allows the selling NBFC to offload its loans, thereby freeing up capital, while the purchasing institution gains the opportunity to enhance its loan portfolio and earn interest income from the acquired loans. This Direct Assignment is essentially what is popularly known as the transfer of loan exposure.

The RBI issued the transfer of loan exposures directions in 2021 regulating all transactions among regulated entities involving transfer of loan exposures.

Interest sharing and servicing after the transfer

Pursuant to a transfer of loan, it is not necessary that the future interest income arising from the loans would be shared in the same proportion as that of the transfer. For instance, if an NBFC assigns 90% of the loan portfolio to a bank, there is no mandate that all interest income received in the future would be shared in the same proportion of 90:10. Generally, the borrower is not made aware of the transfer and therefore it is important that the NBFC continues to service the loan. In such cases it is only fair that the NBFC gets a higher proportion of interest. Accordingly, it is quite common in direct assignment transactions to have a disproportionate interest share. 

The question which now arises is whether this excess interest income retained by the NBFC would be taxable under the provisions of the income tax act. 

ITAT Ruling and taxation on disproportionate interest share in loan transfers

A recent ITAT ruling of May 7, 2024 clarifies the taxation treatment for disproportionate interest share in case of loan transfers. In this case, NBFC assigned 90% of the loan portfolio to a bank via the direct assignment route. However, the bank was not receiving the entire interest on the 90% loan assigned but was only entitled to a fixed percentage of share while the NBFC retained the excess interest. Accordingly, the revenue department was of the view that the assessee was responsible to deduct TDS on the excess interest allowed to be retained by the NBFC under section 194A of the Income Tax Act. 

The revenue department further raised the question on deduction of TDS under SEction 194J and 194H of the Income Tax Act. 

Interest Retained not a result of money borrowed or debt incurred by the transferee

For the deciding the fate of the NBFC under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, the following was observed by the ITAT:

  1. For TDS to be deducted under section 194A of the Income Tax Act, the crucial aspect to be satisfied was whether the part interest allowed to be retained by the originating NBFC by the bank is payment in the nature of interest to the NBFC for any money borrowed or debt incurred by the bank.
  1. It was acknowledged that the 90% of the loan portfolio was assigned to the bank and consequently any default among the assigned loans would result in loss to the bank. 
  1. Any amount collected from the borrowers was initially getting deposited in an escrow account and was subsequently distributed between the NBFC and the bank in accordance with the agreement entered into by the entities. 
  1. It could not be shown that the interest allowed to be retained with the NBFC was a result of any money borrowed or debt incurred by the bank from the NBFC. 
  2. Accordingly, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS on the excess interest retained by the NBFC under section 194A. 

Interest retained not in the nature of fees for any professional / technical services rendered by the transferor

The next issue which was adjudicated in the case was whether the interest allowed to be retained with the NBFC was a consideration for rendering professional / technical services by the transferor NBFC to the transferee bank. 

As per section 194J of the Act, any person, not being an individual or HUF, who is responsible for paying to a resident any sum, inter alia, by way of fees for professional services or fees for technical services shall at the time of credit of such sum to the account of payee deduct tax at source.

For this purpose the ITAT observed the following:

  1. The NBFC and the Bank entered into a tripartite service agreement pursuant to which the originating NBFC was appointed as servicer for the loans. The NBFC was therefore responsible for managing, collecting and receiving payment of the receivable and depositing the same in the ‘Collection and Payout Account’ to enable the distribution of the payout therefrom and providing certain other services.
  1. As per the service agreement, a one time service fee of Rs.1 Lakh was agreed to be payable by the bank to the NBFC as consideration for the services rendered.
  1. The ITAT brushed aside the contention of the revenue department that service fee of Rs 1L was inadequate and the excess interest allowed to be retained by the NBFC should in fact be considered as fee for rendering the services by the transferor NBFC. 
  1. There was a separate tripartite Deed of Assignment of receivables entered into by the parties according to which the bank paid the entire principal amount equivalent to 90% of the entire pool to the NBFC upfront. However, it was observed that the transfer being an independent commercial transaction cannot be on a cost to cost basis without there being any markup.
  1. Accordingly, the bank opted to pay the consideration for the loans assigned partially by way of an upfront payment equivalent to the principal amount of the loan assigned to it and partly by agreeing to earn a lower rate of interest on its portion of assigned loans and allowing the NBFC to retain the part interest received from the borrower.
  1. Therefore the liability under section 194J of the Income Tax Act was only for the service fee of Rs.1 L and cannot be extended to the excess interest share retained by the NBFC.
  1. Accordingly, the assessee was under no obligation to deduct TDS on the excess interest share retained by the NBFC under section 194J of the Income Tax Act. 

Interest retained not in the nature of commission / brokerage

The last issue in this case to be decided before the ITAT was whether the retained interest would fall in the category of commission or brokerage and was liable to TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act. 

As per section 194H of the Act, any person, not being an individual or HUF, who is responsible for paying to a resident, any income by way of commission or brokerage, shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee deduct tax.

For determining the tax treatment under this section, the ITAT observed the following:

  1. It could not be said that the loans originated by the NBFC were on behalf of the bank.
  1. For the services rendered by the NBFC, it was observed that the same was pursuant to a separate service agreement which provides for payment of separate service fees in lieu of such services.
  1. Accordingly, it cannot be contended that the transferor NBFC was acting as an agent of the transferee bank.
  1. Accordingly, the liability to deduct TDS on the excess interest retained by the NBFC under section 194H of the Income Tax Act does not arise. 

Concluding Remarks 

In conclusion, the recent ITAT ruling has provided significant clarity on the taxation treatment of disproportionate interest shares in loan transfers, particularly in the context of Direct Assignment transactions. 

In this case, the ITAT emphasized that the interest retained by the NBFC was not a result of any money borrowed or debt incurred by the bank. Additionally, it was clarified that the interest retained did not constitute fees for professional or technical services rendered by the transferor NBFC, nor did it fall within the ambit of commission or brokerage.

As the financial landscape continues to evolve, such judicial pronouncements play a crucial role in fostering transparency, compliance, and fairness in taxation.

Relinquishment of source of profit in favour of an RP: also an RPT

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– Mahak Agarwal | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

– Updated on December 13, 2025

The broad spectrum of the definition of Related Party Transactions (RPTs) under the Listing Regulation, continues to be an error prone area in terms of compliance. A recent SEBI ruling1 has further strengthens this aspect where the phrase ‘transfer of resources, services or obligations’ has been explained in an extremely new dimension with a commendable insight from the authorities which again shows that the regulators can no more be restricted by the imaginary boundaries placed by the corporates when it comes tightening the loose ends of corporate governance.

This article delves into the basis which the Regulators considered for concluding a mutual understanding and agreement between related parties to be an RPT notwithstanding the  contention of the company. The essential question of law involved in this case was whether the allocation of certain products and geographic areas between RPs constitutes an RPT. The article contains our analysis of SEBI’s order and highlights the recent order passed by the SAT upon appeal  in the matter, reaffirming the said stand.

Read more →

Summary of Important Supreme Court Judgements on IBC

/0 Comments/in , /by

Team Resolution | resolution@vinodkothari.com

Loader Loading…
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download as PDF [656.18 KB]

Group Insolvency: Relevance of Substantive Consolidation in Indian Context

/1 Comment/in , /by

– Vinod Kothari and Sikha Bansal[1] | resolution@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

Insolvency law has always to be aligned to economic realities; when it comes to solving the problem of corporate insolvencies, an economy cannot disregard the prevalent corporate structures. The design which corporates adopt to conduct business must, in fact, be one of the most critical factors while designing the insolvency laws.  Thus, if group assets, contracts, technological assets, investments or intellectual or other business rights remain scattered across a complicated group of intertwined entities, an insolvency law framework that remains constrained by the bounds of “legal entity” is unlikely to achieve the objective of ensuring preservation and, in case of liquidation, equitable distribution of corporate value for the benefit of stakeholders.

Propagation of group structures in India

Therefore, the key question to start is: do Indian businesses have complex group structures, involving layers of entities, whether legally structured as subsidiaries or not? An OECD report, prepared  with significant inputs from SEBI[2], citing data collected from 4100 listed companies as of December 2020, says that there are on an average 50 subsidiaries for listed companies forming part of NIFTY-50, a number which has tripled over the last 15 years. It goes further to say that there are 15 listed companies which have more than 100 subsidiaries, whereas there are some which have over 200. Further, out of the 100 largest listed companies by market capitalization, approximately 40 India listed companies had three or more layers of subsidiaries/step-down subsidiaries, surpassed only by Singapore and Malaysia among OECD countries.

If the numbers stated in the above survey are surprising, it must be submitted that these numbers do not incorporate (a) number of layers on the top of the listed entity, that is, the chain of holding companies or companies; (b) associates, as quite often, the shareholding may be split across several group entities with none of them having sufficient holding to be termed as holding company; (c) the chain of companies above or below a listed company where the chain is snapped by use of a chain-breaker, that is, an entity which itself is not a subsidiary of the listed entity, but owns or is owned by a vertical chain of entities. The plausible economic reasons for existence of group structures are: efficiencies in operations, reduced dependence on external finances, and economies of scale. And as such, one would often see overlaps in asset use (e.g. asset of one entity being shared across group entities, or used as security against borrowings of entities), liabilities (group entities being joint obligors, third party security providers), common stakeholders (shareholders, directors, lenders, etc.) across group entities. However, such complex group structures have the potential to house complex web of transactions, thereby increasing the opacity of such structures and chances of wrongdoings, misconduct and lawlessness. Holding entities are most commonly employed to raise finance for group holdings, using pledge of operating companies’ shares, and use such borrowings to finance the operating companies. It is also commonplace practice to have a group’s brand or intellectual property owned by a promoter group entity. As there were many cases where group transactions were involved and/or put to question by the courts during insolvency proceedings[3].

The complete article has been published in the “Annual Publication 2023: IBC – Evolution, Learnings and Innovation” and can be accessed on the link here, from Page 281 onwards.

[1] With research support and assistance, gratefully acknowledged, by Neha Malu

[2] https://www.oecd.org/corporate/ca/Company-Groups-in-India-2022.pdf

[3] Yadubir Singh Sajwan & Ors. Vs. M/s. Som Resorts Private Limited [Company Petition No. (IB)-67(ND)/2022], ArcelorMittal India Pvt. Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta [Civil Appeal nos.9402-9405 OF 2018] etc.

ARC rights to use SARFAESI for debts assigned by non-SARFAESI entities

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– Archana Kejriwal

Asset reconstruction companies, formed under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’/‘the Act’) are an important part of the country’s ecosystem to tackle non-performing loans. ARCs buy and resolve non-performing loans by acquiring them from the financial system.

ARCs were traditionally focusing on acquiring large corporate loan exposures. However, recently, there is increasing participation of the ARCs in retail loans. When ARCs buy retail loans, it is quite likely that the lender or the loan does not qualify for SARFAESI right when the loan was with the lender. This may be either because of the nature of the lender (NBFCs having assets of less than Rs 100 crores) or the size of outstanding (less than Rs 20 lakhs). In such cases, once the ARC acquires the loans, will it have the rights under the SARFAESI Act?

The question becomes important, because in case of corporate loans, the advantage that ARCs had over the original lender was one of aggregation, that is, ARCs acquiring loans given to the same borrower by various lenders, and thus getting significant strength in relation to the borrower. This cannot be the case, obviously, with retail loans. Hence, if the acquiring ARC is no better than the outgoing NBFC, in what way does the transfer of the loans help to accelerate the recovery?

In this article, we discuss this important question.

Read more →

Rainbow versus Raman: A Riddle so crucial and so hard to resolve

/0 Comments/in , , /by

– Vinod Kothari

The heart of insolvency law is the priority order or the waterfall given in sec. 53, and one of the very crucial issues in the priority of secured creditors is whether statutory claims will rank at par with secured creditors by virtue a provision in the respective laws giving the Government a status of a secured creditor, or will have to rank at the fifth priority as provided by sec. 53 (1) (e), there is a situation of uncertainty.

Essentially, the statute will have to step in, because courts can only interpret the law as seen and read by the courts; courts cannot mend the law to meet what might have been the design of the law. On the contrary, if the lawmakers leave the law as is, liquidators will have to face claims, as they already are facing, from state governments claiming equality of ranking with secured creditors, even though many liquidations might have already closed or distributed their assets.

Read more →