Posts

Partly Paid Shares – Whether Doppelganger of Share Warrants?

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

– Pammy Jaiswal and Saket Kejriwal | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Background

In recent times, the use of partly-paid shares has seen some traction[1] where several listed companies[2] came up with issuance of partly-paid shares[3]. While the law provides for the issuance of partly-paid securities, it is important to understand how this instrument has not been used merely as a capital-structuring tool, but arguably, as a regulatory workaround. An analogy may be drawn to a situation where a customer is allowed to purchase a valuable by paying a token money today and pay the full consideration after a period of say 1-2 years at the same price which prevailed at the time of payment of token money. Specifically, promoters and investors appear to be utilizing partly-paid shares as a substitute for share warrants, by paying a minuscule part of the value of shares as a part of application money and the balance payment is allowed to be made at any time in the future, sometimes after an unreasonably long time.

In this article, we argue that the issue of such partly-paid shares is as good as issuing share warrants, However, circumventing the challenges associated with warrants.

Fundamentals of Share Warrants

Ashare warrant is a security issued by a company that grants its holder the right/option to subscribe to equity shares of the company (i.e. Future Equity) at a predetermined price, within  a predetermined period, upon the upfront payment of a token amount referred to as the option premium.

Legal Context

A share warrant, being marketable in nature, provides a right in securities, therefore, it is treated as a security under Section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Some of the relevant legal provisions would include:

  • Sections 42, 62 and other relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013; and
  • The SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018.

Key Features

  • Right to Decide: A share warrant allows an investor to subscribe to the company’s equity shares in the future, typically at a price lower than the anticipated market price at the time of exercise. Conversely, if the market price at the time of exercise falls below the pre‑determined price, the investor may choose not to subscribe, thereby limiting their loss to the option premium paid (i.e., the upfront cost), rather than incurring the full loss arising from the difference between the initial/subscription value and the reduced market price.
  • Option Premium: The upfront amount paid for obtaining this right is called the option premium i.e. if the current market value of shares is Rs.100, then the issuer may issue equity shares immediately at Rs.100, or Issue a share warrant where the investor pays Rs. 10 upfront for the right to subscribe the equity at Rs. 100 in the future. If, at the time of exercise, the market price of the share has risen to Rs. 120, the investor benefits from locking the price at Rs. 100, making the Rs. 10 upfront cost worthwhile. Conversely, if the market price falls to Rs. 50, the investor may choose not to exercise the warrant, limiting the loss to Rs. 10 i.e. option premium. This forms a part of the net worth of the company. For details on option pricing, may refer to our resource on Option Pricing Model.
  • Forfeiture: If the warrant holder chooses not to exercise the right, the upfront option premium is forfeited.

Pricing

The value of option premium is generally determined by Black Scholes Model, Binomial Options Pricing Model or Monte Carlo Simulation Method. The most appropriate method for calculation of option premium, in the context of companies using warrants as a regulatory workaround, is the Simulation Method.

One of the key features of share warrants is that the longer the life of the option, there is a higher probability of its price being high. In accordance with the above models, issuing share warrants for an extended period can raise the option premium to a point where it becomes undesirable. Therefore, it is recommended that the life of a warrant should be just and reasonable, and that it should not be used as a substitute for long‑term convertible instruments such as OCDs, CCDs, CCPS, or other similar securities.

Difference between warrants and partly-paid up shares

While both partly‑paid shares and warrants involve an upfront payment towards a future right in equity shares, they differ significantly on the following points:

Basis of DifferencePartly-Paid SharesShare Warrants
Right and ObligationHolder is obligated to pay the remaining call money when demanded by the company.   Failure to pay will lead to forfeiture of the subscription and call money received by the company.Holder has a right, but not an obligation, to subscribe to equity shares at a future date.
Nature of InvestmentThese are equity shares issued with part of the value paid upfront, making the holder a shareholder of the company.These are options issued for a premium, entitling the holder to subscribe for equity shares in the future.
ValuationShares are subscribed at fair value computed as on the date of making the first subscription/ call moneyShares are subscribed at current fair value on a future date along with payment of option premium
Shareholder RightsPartly-paid equity shareholders enjoy rights proportionate to their paid-up amount.No rights until conversion.

Why are partly-paid shares doppelgangers ?

Partly-paid shares in its usual nature when used for capital needs in tranches serves the permitted purpose for this concept was introduced, however, this benefit becomes a governance concern when it is used as an alternative to share warrants and as evident from the table above, the two differ in various aspects. The primary reason for this mirroring lies in valuation. In the case of share warrants issued with a longer tenor, the cost of the warrant, representing the right to subscribe to future equity, tends to be higher when calculated using fair value methods, making this option impractical. As an alternative, many companies have opted to issue partly-paid shares, allowing an investor to pay only a minimal upfront amount (similar to the option premium in the case of a warrant) as part of the application money and reserving the right with the investor to infuse the remaining funds for a longer period like 5-10 years which would not be possible in case of warrants as the premium will increase drastically, if calculated as per fair value methods.

Token money to secure allotment of shares

It is imperative to note that in case of share warrants, the price paid upfront is the option premium which is basically the price paid to get the equity at the current value at the future date as against in case of partly-paid shares, where the investor becomes a shareholder on the first payment date by even paying a nominal part amount reflecting the fair value (consisting of part face value and proportionate premium) as on the date of making such first payment. The catch lies in the fact that there is no legal prescription on the maximum time within which a company needs to make the final call on such partly-paid shares (except in case of IPOs) which in case of warrants runs up to 18 months for listed securities as well as size of the calls which in the case of listed companies requires at least 25% of the consideration amount calculated as per the formula for exercise price[4] with reference date being the record date shall be received at the time of option premium. 

One may argue that, given the fundamental difference between the two instruments is that one comes with a right (warrants) and the other with the security (partly-paid shares), they can not be used as substitutes as in case of partly-paid shares the right to call money lies with the Board and the investor is obligated to pay on demand, failing which shares may be forfeited, resulting in the loss of upfront amount paid.

On the other hand, a share warrant gives a right to the investor to decide when, or even if, to make the payment. If the investor chooses not to exercise the option, the upfront money paid is still forfeited, with the key difference being that the loss occurs at the investor’s discretion.

The above argument is valid theoretically. However, in practice, this mirroring is frequently used by start‑ups, which are generally incorporated as private companies. In such cases, although the ‘right to call money’ rests with the Board of Directors, the Board itself typically comprises the promoters i.e. the very investors who subscribe to these mirrored partly-paid shares or in the case of external investors/subscribers, their appointed representatives form an integral part of the Board. As a result, the obligation on the subscriber to pay the balance can, in reality, be viewed more as a right, given that it is exercised by a Board largely aligned with the interests of the investors themselves.

Additionally, partly-paid shares provide several benefits to the investor, like proprietary rights, chances to book profits in case of transfer, etc.We have discussed the same below:

Proprietary interest of partly-paid shares

Partly-paid shares are not merely rights in equity shares but allotment of the shares itself. Once an investor pays the subscription money/ first call, the shares are allotted to the investor who becomes a shareholder immediately and gets ownership rights from day one. Having said that, while the benefits arising out of such ownership is proportional to the amount paid up on the shares, it still dilutes the stake of the other investors who hold fully paid up shares.

The investor’s economic risk is lower compared to a fully paid-up shareholder since only part of the share price has been paid, the investor’s capital at risk is limited to the amount actually contributed, while the ownership position in the company already stands created.

Chance to book profits by transfer of partly-paid shares 

If an investor who has paid only a nominal amount intends to sell such shares for reasons like liquidity or apprehension of the investee not doing well for some reason, he stands a chance to make profits on the part payment where the fair value of such shares have appreciated at the time of such transfer. A purchaser can acquire ownership interest by paying only the fair value of the amount paid-up, while the remaining payment is effectively locked in at the historical fair value. This allows the investor to benefit from future upside without proportionately funding the company at the prevailing fair value for the unpaid portion, which remains priced at the value as on the date of issuance.

Imagine a situation where Mr. A invests in the partly-paid up equity shares of XYZ Ltd. The fair value of the equity shares is say INR 150 (face value INR 10) where Mr. A invests only INR 30 as paid up amount. Thereafter he decides to sell these partly-paid shares to another investor after 2 years by which time the balance amount is still uncalled. The transfer of these partly-paid shares would be done at a fair value where lets assume the value of the shares have appreciated and as a consideration, Mr. A receives INR 80 as the sale consideration and also passes on the legacy of holding partly-paid shares to the buyer.

However, this issue does not arise in listed companies, where market mechanisms ensure fair price discovery.

An Ideal partly-paid share

Situation where a partly-paid share shall not be considered as a share warrant

In our view, partly‑paid shares should be supported by a concrete plan or blueprint specifying when the call money is expected to be raised along with its purpose. This includes:

  • A defined timeline for making the call on unpaid money;

  • A specific purpose for which the call money will be used; and

  • An upfront subscription amount that is significant and reflects commitment, rather than being a token.

Even if an exact date cannot be determined, it is advisable to link the call to milestones/events ,such as regulatory approvals, project launches, or specific capital needs, rather than leaving it open-ended. This approach distinguishes a legitimate capital-raising intent from doppelganger design of warrants.

Situation where a partly-paid share shall be considered as a share warrant

A partly-paid share may raise regulatory concerns when above conditions do not exist. This includes situations where the initial application amount is nominal, resulting in minuscule capital infusion. Additionally, if the call structure is vague and lacks a defined timeline or commercial justification, it creates ambiguity around the company’s intention to actually raise the remaining capital. The concern is further amplified when the Board of Directors, which holds the discretion to make the call on these partly-paid shares, is influenced or controlled by the very investors who subscribed to these shares. In such scenarios, the obligation to pay the balance amount may become just theoretical.

Conclusion

The intention behind partly-paid shares is to raise capital while allowing the issuer to secure future source of funding, However, when a minuscule amount is paid at the time of subscription of partly-paid shares and the remaining calls are deferred for a long period without any definite /concrete plan, this raises concern as sighted above and from a valuation perspective may not be seen as a partly-paid shares.

[1] Economic Times

[2] Economic Times

[3] Economic TImes

[4] Regulation 67 of SEBI ICDR, 2018

Read more:

Share warrants under cloud – are companies not allowed to issue share warrants?

Strengthening India’s Corporate Bond Market: A Look at NITI Aayog’s Recommendations

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Simrat Singh | finserv@vinodkothari.com

India’s aspiration to become a US $30 Trillion economy by 2047 rests on its ability to mobilise long-term, stable and affordable capital. Debt capital can be an attractive source for this. While banks have historically been the backbone of credit intermediation in India, a bank-dominated financial system may be inadequate to meet the financing needs of a developing country like India which includes long-gestation exposures to infrastructure, climate transition, manufacturing and other emerging sectors. Recognising this constraint, NITI Aayog’s report on Deepening the Corporate Bond Market in India (‘Report’) lays out reforms to develop corporate bonds as another major tool for mobilising long-term low-cost capital. 

In this note we highlight some of the reforms being advocated in the Report.

Key Thrust Areas of Reforms:

Regulatory Efficiency 

A central theme of the Report is the need to reduce regulatory friction arising from fragmented and overlapping oversight by SEBI, RBI and the MCA for corporate bonds. Inconsistent treatment of similar bonds, procedural complexity, overlapping disclosures and different approval timelines are identified as major constraints, particularly for public issuances and lower-rated issuers. A specific concern highlighted is issuer-based regulation: bonds issued by banks and NBFCs are regulated by the RBI, while similar bonds issued by non-financial corporates fall under SEBI and MCA oversight. This results in different disclosure standards and compliance processes for similar bonds

To combat this, first, the Report calls for stronger inter-regulatory coordination and recommends measures such as mutual recognition of disclosures, a joint regulatory help desk/single point of contact as well as joint circulars detailing the jurisdictions of each regulator – essentially a centralised coordination mechanism involving SEBI, RBI, MCA and the Ministry of Finance.

Second, the Report emphasises the need to rationalise disclosure norms for public bond issuances, which are significantly more onerous than those applicable to private placements. This asymmetry has led to an overwhelming reliance on private placements, which account for nearly 98% of corporate bond issuances in India (p. 25). Drawing on global practices, the Report recommends a differentiated disclosure regime for well-compliant issuers (p. 66). Specific reforms include extending the validity of offer documents from one year to two or three years, removing ISIN-wise issuance constraints, simplifying PAS-2 and Information Memorandum filings through digital automation on the MCA portal, and introducing a “Well-Known Seasoned Issuer” framework to enable fast-track access to public bond markets for reputed issuers.

Third, the Report stresses the need for regulatory clarity for hybrid instruments, including covered bonds1, securitised debt and infrastructure-linked securities. Many instruments used globally to fund long-term assets do not fit neatly within India’s regulator-specific silos. Jurisdictional ambiguity (which regulator oversees which instrument?) and the absence of standardised regulatory treatment have impeded market development. The Report recommends clearly defined frameworks to facilitate market clarity. In this context, it also highlights tax distortions; for instance, SDIs2 currently attract significantly higher TDS than corporate bonds. The Report states that SDIs are taxed at a higher rate than corporate bonds which prevents securitisation of bonds. However, effective 1.04.2025, SDI TDS rates are aligned with bond rate; both at 10% (See section 194LBC of Tax Act).

Market Infrastructure and Liquidity

Bonds are heterogeneous instruments, varying by type of issuer, tenor, covenants and structure. Unlike equities, electronic order matching alone cannot ensure immediacy of execution or continuous liquidity in the secondary market, particularly in lower-rated or infrequently traded bonds. Despite progress through electronic platforms such as RFQ for secondary trading and EBP for primary issuance, trading volumes remain shallow and concentrated in highly rated bonds.

The Report recommends expanding electronic trading, enhancing post-trade reporting (to improve price discovery) and increasing the proportion of trades settled on a Delivery-versus-Payment (DVP) basis3. Absence of a robust market-making ecosystem is seen as a major constraint on secondary-market liquidity (pp. 22, 36, 106). Limited risk appetite and balance-sheet constraints deter intermediaries from providing continuous two-way quotes, especially in lower-rated and longer-tenor bonds.

To address this, the Report recommends enabling market-making through regulatory incentives and improved access to repo markets. In particular, the creation of a standing repo facility by RBI for high rated corporate bonds would allow market makers4 to monetise inventories efficiently and support continuous liquidity provision. While corporate bonds are included in the RBI’s list of repo-eligible instruments, their treatment differs materially from Government securities (G-Secs). Repos in G-Secs are exempt from CRR and SLR computation which means Banks can access funds through G-Sec repos without providing SLR and CRR on those funds. In contrast, cash raised through repos backed by corporate bonds is treated as a liability for CRR and SLR purposes, hence banks have to provide CRR and SLR on the resulting liquidity. Also, unlike G-Secs, which are centrally cleared and settled through CCIL, corporate bond repos lack a single, standardised clearing and settlement mechanism; they are cleared through F-TRAC and stock exchanges. The result is that the volume of corporate bond repo is negligible (exact data on corporate bond repo could not be sourced).

The Report also flags structural weaknesses in the credit rating ecosystem, including rating inflation, conflicts of interest under the issuer-pays model, and excessive regulatory reliance on ratings (p. 71). Strengthening governance standards is the key recommendation for credit ratings. To improve credit rating access for smaller issuers, the Report suggests exploring alternative credit assessment models, including technology-driven frameworks using GST-returns and other turnover based data and digital transaction histories.

Further, the Report recommends strengthening the existing framework requiring large corporates to raise a portion of incremental borrowings through debt securities (LCB Framework)5. Proposed enhancements include increasing the minimum market borrowing requirement and progressively extending the framework to smaller corporates with lower thresholds.

Drawing on the IMF’s FSAP 2025, the Report also recommends allowing high-quality corporate bonds to be used as collateral in RBI’s repo operations. International experience from the ECB, Bank of Japan, and Reserve Bank of Australia suggests that such measures can enhance secondary-market liquidity and broaden the investor base, subject to appropriate safeguards.

Equally important is the creation of a government-backed, centralised corporate bond data repository. Fragmented data across regulators and exchanges currently hampers price discovery and covenant monitoring. A unified, real-time repository is recommended to improve transparency for issuers, investors, and regulators.

Innovation in Instruments and Market design

The Report makes it clear that regulatory reforms alone are insufficient; product and market innovation are essential to expand depth and distribute risk. India’s bond market remains narrow not only due to investor risk aversion but also due to the limited availability of instruments aligned with diverse risk–return preferences and long-gestation financing needs. Green bonds, sustainability-linked bonds6, and transition bonds are identified as important instruments for financing climate action and infrastructure. However, the absence of a standardised green taxonomy and concerns around greenwashing have constrained growth. The Report, therefore, recommends establishing clear definitions, disclosure standards and verification frameworks to ensure credibility and scale ESG-oriented bond markets.

The Report proposes institutionalising a dedicated class of Corporate Bond Dealers (CBDs), modelled on the U.S. primary dealer system. Eligible banks, NBFCs and other financial institutions would be required to provide continuous two-way quotes, supported by incentives such as capital relief on bond inventories and access to RBI refinance and repo facilities. Enhanced market surveillance, real-time trade reporting, price dissemination and inventory disclosures are also recommended.

Investor and Issuer Participation

Broadening the investor base is identified as another critical reform pillar. Long-term institutional investors such as insurance companies, pension funds and provident funds are natural holders of long-duration bonds, yet regulatory investment norms constrain exposure only to higher-rated securities. The Report recommends a calibrated relaxation of these norms.

For retail investors, the Report proposes lowering minimum investment thresholds (from existing ₹ 10,000), increasing retail quotas in public bond issuances, particularly for tax-free and ESG-linked bonds7, and simplifying TDS provisions to address tax inefficiencies in secondary market trades. OBPPs have been acknowledged to contribute to secondary market liquidity, however, the volumes are low. Further, there is no mention of concerns w.r.t downselling through OBPPs which was recently highlighted by SEBI8

On the issuer side, India’s corporate bond market remains heavily concentrated among AAA and AA-rated entities. To address this imbalance, the Report advocates scaling up credit enhancement mechanisms such as PCEs and support from development finance institutions. It also highlights the need to promote longer-tenor issuances, especially for infrastructure and climate-linked projects, where asset lives significantly exceed typical corporate bond maturities. In this context, it is noteworthy that NITI Aayog has cited our resource, “Partial Credit Enhancement: A Catalyst for Boosting Infrastructure Bond Issuances?”, in the Report while discussing the role of partial credit enhancement mechanisms in deepening the corporate bond market (pp. 75 and 99). Further, regulatory subsidies for first-time or low-volume issuers and pooled issuance platforms to facilitate market access for smaller issuers is also recommended (pp. 65, 75).

The Report recognizes that CDS are underdeveloped. Currently, CDS can be purchased only by investors who already own the underlying bond, which prevents trading in the CDS market. Further, only single-name CDS are permitted, which means a separate CDS contract is required for each issuer, unlike global markets such as the U.S., where index CDS allows one CDS to cover a basket of bonds. Lastly, there is a limit on FPI investors providing CDS which is 5% of the outstanding corporate bond market. These restrictions have resulted in limited CDS protection. The Report also recommends bigger NBFCs to act as CDS market makers

Conclusion

NITI Aayog’s recommendations envisage a corporate bond market that evolves from a supplementary funding channel into a core pillar of India’s financial system. If implemented in a coordinated manner, these reforms could expand the market to ₹100–120 trillion by 2030, improve financial stability, and channel long-term capital into productive investment. The real challenge, however, lies in execution, particularly in achieving sustained regulatory coordination and market-making capacity. Addressing these constraints will be critical if corporate bonds are to play a meaningful role in financing India’s long-term growth and infrastructure ambitions under the vision of Viksit Bharat by 2047.

See our other resources on bonds

  1. Bond Credit Enhancement Framework: Competitive, rational, reasonable
  2. Demystifying Structured Debt Securities: Beyond Plain Vanilla Bonds
  3. Bond market needs a friend, not parent
  4. SEBI Securitisation Regulations: Track Record, Risk retention and Investment size among several new requirements
  5. Mandatory listing for further bond issues
  6. NHB’s PCE Scheme for HFCs
  7. Corporate Bonds and Debentures
  1. Covered bonds are secured debt instruments backed by a segregated pool of high-quality assets, offering investors dual recourse to both the issuer and the underlying assets. May refer to our resource on covered bonds. ↩︎
  2. May refer to our book Listing Regulations on Securitised Debt Instruments and Security Receipts ↩︎
  3. DVP is a settlement mechanism in which the transfer of securities and funds occurs simultaneously, eliminating counterparty and settlement risk
    ↩︎
  4.  May refer to our resource ‘Bond issuers set to become Market Maker to enhance liquidity’ ↩︎
  5. May refer to our resource ‘Mandatory bond issuance by Large Corporates: FAQs on revised framework’ ↩︎
  6. May refer to our resources ‘Sustainability or ESG Bonds’ and ‘From Rooftops to Ratings: India’s Green Securitisation Debut’ ↩︎
  7. May refer to our resource ESG Debt Securities: Framework for Issuance and Listing in India ↩︎
  8. May refer to our resource “Downstreamed through intermediaries: Deemed public issue concerns for privately placed debt” ↩︎

When “Profit” Isn’t Always Distributable

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by
– Understanding Reportable vs Distributable Profits under Ind AS and the Companies Act, 2013

– Sourish Kundu | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

In the sphere of corporate law intertwined with accounting principles, there arises a question on profits that are reported in the financials of a company and the amount that can actually be distributed, that is to say, a company’s reported profits may be impacted by several accounting standards, yet that does not mean it can distribute all of that profit as dividends. Under Indian law and accounting rules, there is a clear distinction between reportable profits (what appears in the financial statements) and distributable profits (what a company is legally permitted to pay out to shareholders). In this article, we decode the difference between reportable profits and distributable profits and the implications of this difference, whether companies are expected to prepare two statements of profit or loss, how investors are expected to read the financials to ascertain what can be expected as dividend. 

What are Reportable Profits?

“Reportable profits” refers to the profits (or loss) shown in the Statement of Profit & Loss prepared under Indian Accounting Standards (Ind AS). It includes all recognised items of income, expenses, gains and losses, whether realised or unrealised, so long as they meet the recognition and measurement rules in terms of the relevant accounting standards. For example, under Ind AS 109 (Financial Instruments), paragraph 5.7.1 states that changes in fair value of financial assets or liabilities measured at fair value through profit or loss (FVTPL) must be recognised in the PnL. Similarly, fair-value measurement principles under Ind AS 113 (Fair Value Measurement) apply where other Ind ASs require or permit fair value. 

Because reportable profits include unrealised fair value gains, remeasurements, or other accounting adjustments, there is always a possibility of an inflated or deflated picture being painted wherein there is a difference between a company’s “profit” number from the perspective of distribution.

What are Distributable Profits?

“Distributable profits” are that portion of profits (or reserves) out of which a company can legally declare and pay dividends to its shareholders under the Companies Act, 2013. Section 123(1) of the Act states that a company shall not declare or pay any dividend for a financial year except:

  • out of the profits of the company for that year, after providing for depreciation, and
  • out of the profits of any previous financial years, after providing for depreciation and remaining undistributed.

The first proviso to section 123(1) further clarifies that unrealised gains, notional gains or revaluation surplus arising from measurement at fair value shall not be treated as realised profits for the purpose of dividend declaration. 

“Provided that in computing profits any amount representing unrealised gains, notional gains or revaluation of assets and any change in carrying amount of an asset or of a liability on measurement of the asset or the liability at fair value shall be excluded”

Thus, even though accounting standards allow recognition of such gains/losses in the PnL statement, the law restricts their distribution and ensures distribution can be made of only actual realised profits.

As per the section, following adjustments are required to be made to reportable profits to compute distributable profits

Reportable ProfitsXXX
Less:
(b) unrealised gains(XXX)
(c) notional gains(XXX)
(d) revaluation of assets (positive)(XXX)
(e) any change in carrying amount of assets (positive) on measurement at FV(XXX)
(f) any change in carrying amount of liability (reduction) on measurement at FV
Add:
(a) revaluation of assets (negative)XXX
(b) any change in carrying amount of assets (reduction) on measurement at FVXXX
(c) any change in carrying amount of liability (increment) on measurement at FVXXX
Distributable ProfitsXXX

So effectively, it is not the case that companies need to maintain or prepare parallel PnL, one for the accounting purpose and one for the purpose of ascertaining distributable profits, the adjustments as illustrated above needs to be carried out. This is similar to adjustments carried out for the purpose of ascertaining profits in terms of Section 198 of the Companies Act, 2013, which is broadly used for determining CSR expenditure and the limits of managerial remuneration. Interestingly, the treatment of fair value changes in assets and liabilities is akin to how it is treated here, that is, fair value gains are not given credit and hence reversed, and on the other hand, fair value losses are not deducted and hence added back to arrive at the figure out of which managerial remuneration is to be paid, or CSR expenditure is required to be made. 

Some examples of such fair value changes and their impact on the reportable and distributable profit figures are given below: 

Examples: 

Consider the following scenarios for company following Ind AS principles of accounting: 

  1. Treatment of FVTPL
DateParticularsValue Reportable Profits Distributable Profits 
July, 2024Acquisition of investment Rs. 100––
31st March, 2025Value of investments Rs. 15050 (represents fair value gains routed through PnL)–
January, 2026Sale of investments Rs. 200–100 (realised gain)
  1. Deferred Tax Asset
DateParticularsValue Reportable Profits Distributable Profits 
July, 2024Acquisition of investment Rs. 100––
31st March, 2025Value of investments Rs. 70-30 (represents fair value loss routed through PnL)–
Deferred tax assetRs. 9 (30% tax on Rs. 30)9 –
January, 2026Sale of investments Rs. 90–-10

Why the Difference Exists

The divergence arises because accounting standards and company-law provisions serve different purposes:

  • The Ind AS framework aims to present true and fair information about an entity’s financial performance and position, which includes remeasurements and accounting for fair value changes.
  • The company law legislation aims to protect the company’s capital base and ensure dividends are paid out of “real” profits, thereby protecting creditor interests and preventing erosion of capital.

Thus, distributing unrealised or notional gains could expose the company (and its creditors) to risk if those gains reversed. The legal restriction is a form of capital maintenance concept.

Conclusion

In sum: reportable profits (what Ind AS shows) is not always the same as distributable profits (what a company can legally pay out). The presence of items such as unrealised fair-value gains, which are recognised in profit but not “realised” and hence, not available for distribution under company law, creates this difference. Understanding this distinction is essential because in the end, the dividend cheque flows only from the legally distributable pool and not simply from what the profit and loss account might suggest.

Read more:

Should you expect adjustment in profits for “Expected Credit Loss”?

Cash in Hand, But Still a Loss? 

Piercing through subjectivity to reach out for SBOs

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

ROCs uncovering SBOs through publicly available information

– Pammy Jaiswal and Darshan Rao | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The framework for SBO identification can be traced back to the recommendations of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global watchdog for combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 (‘Act’) read with its Rules translates the recommendations into provisions for enforcing the concept, with two broad manners of identification methods. The first being the objective test where the shareholding is picked up through the layers to see the type of entity and the extent of holding to identify the SBO for the reporting entity. The second is the subjective test where the aspects of control and significant influence are evaluated from all possible corners to reach the SBO. It is generally seen that the objective test is the most common way for SBO identification, however, in most of the cases where the regulator has made the identification, it has held the hands of subjectivity.  As a follow-up to the LinkedIn case[1], we have discussed a few other rulings where the RoC has taken diverse ways under the subjectivity armour to reach out to the SBOs. The article also explains the principles of law that emerge from every case law, giving a broader angle to the readers on the ever evolving corporate governance norms in the context of SBO identification.

Some of the aspects via which SBOs have been identified in the rulings discussed in this article are as follows:

  • Control over the Board of the listed overseas parent
  • CEO in relation to and not only of the Pooled Investment Vehicle
  • Financial dependence and control established via usage of common domain name
  • Erstwhile promoters obligation to disclose where the new promoters are exempt for the then time period

We have discussed these in detail in the following paragraphs to inform the way RoCs went on a spree to unearthen the SBOs taking shields of the language of the existing legal provisions around SBO identification.

Subjectivity facets for SBO identification

As discussed above, the two broad subjective tests for SBO identification are right to exercise or the actual exercising of significant influence or control over the reporting entity. It is imperative note the relevance of stating both the situations as a potential to become SBO for the reporting, being:

  • Right to exercise significant influence or control [note here that actual exercise is not a prerequisite]; or
  • Actual exercising of significant influence or control.

Further, it is pertinent to note that ‘control’ has been defined under Section 2(27) of the Act to “include the right to appoint majority of the directors or to control the management or policy decisions exercisable by a person or persons acting individually or in concert, directly or indirectly, including by virtue of their shareholding or management rights or shareholders agreements or voting agreements or in any other manner”.

Again, the term ‘significant influence’ has been defined under Rule 2(1)(i) of the SBO Rulesas the “power to participate, directly or indirectly, in the financial and operating policy decisions of the reporting company but is not control or joint control of those policies”.

In the following parts of the article, we will be able to know, the manner in which these aspects have been investigated to reach out for the SBOs.

A.   Examining cross holdings, chairmanship and other publicly available data[2] 

The Indian reporting entity was a WoS of an overseas listed entity which was a large conglomerate and hence there were several cross holdings in the entities in the top level. There was no declaration of SBO in the given case on account of the argument given that the holding entity is a listed company and hence, there is no individual holding control or significant influence over the said parent. Enquiry was made about the details of the promoters, directors, KMP and shareholders of certain promoter entities as well as chairperson of board meetings and UBO for the reporting company.

Further, upon investigation into the public records of the holding entity, it was found that one particular individual from the promoter category along with his family holds approx 21.46% in the ultimate parent entity and that his son significant stake in two other promoter group entities which in turn holds in the ultimate parent entity of the reporting company.

RoC concluded that the son along with his family members, directly and indirectly exercises significant influence in the ultimate parent. Further, the same person also holds the position of a chairperson in the said entity when the said company already has a full-fledged chairperson already indicating a situation of proxy control through legally remote mechanism. Accordingly, he should have been declared as SBO for the reporting company in India. The snapshot of holding is given below:

B.   Individual manager/ CEO related to Pooled Investment Vehicle and not necessarily of the Investment Vehicle[3]

In cases where the SBO is identified via the members holding the reporting company and the ultimate shareholder as such is a pooled investment vehicle, in that case even if there is no individual as a general partner or the investment manager or the CEO of such vehicle, then any individual in relation to the pooled investment vehicle and not necessarily of such a vehicle can be regarded as an SBO. In this case the CEO of the investment manager was considered as an SBO since he was the one responsible for the decision making of such investment manager and hence, relevant for investment decisions of the vehicle.

While arriving at the conclusion of this ruling, RoC clearly indicated that the legislative scheme of Section 90 ensures that at the end of every ownership chain, a natural person(s) must be identifiable as the SBO. Companies cannot rely on the complexity of foreign fund structures or the absence of direct nominees to evade compliance; the obligation to investigate and file BEN forms lies squarely on the Indian company. The ROC implicitly aligned Indian law with FATF Recommendations 24 and 25[4], emphasizing that beneficial-ownership disclosure extends through investment vehicles, LLPs, and trusts

C.   Financial / Business Dependency, Usage of common domain name, KMPs of foreign parent employed in Indian reporting company[5]

In a very interesting case where 100% of the shares were only held by a few individuals, RoC concluded that even in such entities identification of SBO is still possible on account of assessment of several factors. These include the reporting test as well as financial control test. In such cases, one may consider evaluating the business dependency in terms of supply to or from the reporting entity, other clues like entities with a common domain name, similarity in trademark, procurement policies.

In this case it was investigated and consequently observed that the shareholder of the reporting company held a controlling stake in the overseas supplier entities on which the reporting company had the highest dependency. Further, the RoC also found out that both the reporting company and these supplier entities had applied for a similar trademark. Further, these entities were reported to be under the common control of an individual who happens to be the director as well the majority shareholder of the reporting company. It is also imperative to note that one of the director-cum senior employees and another senior employee are the ones who have been shown as the supervisor and UBO for the overseas supplier entities.

In this ruling, RoC also referred to the FATF Guidance[6] on control in cases with no shareholding. It includes the following means:

  • Control through positions held within a legal person: Natural persons who exercise substantial control over a legal person and are responsible for strategic decisions that fundamentally affect the business practices or general direction of the legal person may be considered a beneficial owner under some circumstances. Depending on the legal person and the country’s laws, directors may or may not take an active role in exercising control over the affairs of the entity.
  • Control through informal means: Furthermore, control over a legal person may be exercised through informal means, such as through close personal connections to relatives or associates. Further, when an individual is using, enjoying or benefiting from the assets owned by the legal person, it could be grounds for further investigation if such individual is in the condition to exercise control over the legal person.

D.   Current exemption gets overruled by past obligation to declare[7]

ROC held clearly in this case that the current holding structure even though exempt from the disclosure requirements pursuant to Rule 8 of the SBO Rules, the same will still be subject to penal actions where the declaration was not made as and when applicable in the period prior to qualifying for such exemption.

Concluding Remarks

On perusal of each of these rulings, it becomes clear that no matter how complicated or how simple the corporate structure is, the regulators will leave no stone unturned while carrying on their investigation for finding the real SBOs. Regulators have the determination to uncover SBOs who exercise control behind every legal entity.

A few measures that can be adopted include establishing robust frameworks to continuously track changes in shareholding and control arrangements, maintaining detailed documentation of every ownership and control analysis conducted and filing all SBO disclosures promptly with the Registrar of Companies (RoC). It is also imperative that suitable amendments are made to define the ‘ultimate beneficial owner’ (UBO) rather than the ‘significant beneficial owner’. To some extent, this can be helpful to those corporations with several layers of entities to identify the UBO, although the process would lose its viability considering the scale and extent of tracing.

However, the concern that remains is that the exercise to trace the origins of relationship may prove to be an onus on entities apart from the penal consequences it carries in case of non-compliance.

[1] Read our analysis here

[2] In the matter of Samsung Display Noida Private Limited

[3] In the matter of Leixir Resources Private Limited

[4]FATF Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons

[5] In the matter of Metec Electronics Private Limited

[6] FATF Beneficial Ownership of Legal Persons

[7] In the matter of Shree Digvijay Cement Ltd

Resource Centre on SBOs

Control based SBO identification beyond the current legislation

Presentation on Fast Track Merger

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

– Team Corplaw | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

FTM.pptx (1)Download

Read more:

Widening the Net of Fast-Track Mergers – A Step Towards NCLT Declogging

Fast Track Merger- finally on a faster track

MCA enabled fast track route for cross border mergers and added additional requirements in IEPF Rules

Webinar on Corporate Social Responsibility

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

https://forms.gle/Yft1pSmuzRZAtAp98

Webinar on CSR_Vinod Kothari.pptx (1)Download

Knowledge Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Widening the Net of Fast-Track Mergers – A Step Towards NCLT Declogging

/2 Comments/in , , , , /by

– Barsha Dikshit and Sourish Kundu | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The recent notification of the Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Amendment Rules, 2025, (‘Amendment’) by the MCA represents a significant move towards further declogging the burden of NCLTs and promoting a more business-friendly restructuring environment. By introducing minor procedural refinements and widening the classes of companies eligible for FTM, the amendments make this route accessible to a larger segment of the corporate sector. 

The fast-track merger (FTM) route was introduced under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 (“the Act”), allowing certain classes of companies to get the schemes approved by Regional directors having jurisdiction over the Transferee Company instead of filing of application/ petition before NCLTs having jurisdictions over transferor and transferee company and getting the same approved after following lengthy proceedings. Basically, the FTM route was designed to ease the burden of NCLTs, with a simplified process and a deemed 60-day timeline for completion, making it a quicker and a more cost-effective alternative.

This article explores the key changes introduced through Amendment, the opportunities they create for faster and more economical reorganisations, and the practical considerations and potential challenges that companies may face while opting for this route.

Additional classes of companies can opt for the fast-track route: 

Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 25 of the CAA Rules, 2016, presently allows the following classes of companies to undertake mergers under the fast-track route:

  • Two or more small companies;
  • Merger between a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiary;
  • Two or more start-up companies;
  • One or more start-up companies with one or more small companies.

Often referred to as the “RD Route” in general parlance, the key features of a FTM, include the elimination of NCLT approval, replaced instead by confirmations/approvals from the RoC, OL, members/creditors representing 90% in value, and lastly an order by the jurisdictional RD confirming such merger. [Read the procedure here]

The key change introduced is to extend the benefit of the RD route beyond the presently eligible companies to include the following additional classes:

  1. Scheme of arrangement between holding (listed or unlisted) and a subsidiary company (listed or unlisted) – regardless of being wholly-owned

Until now, only mergers/demergers between WOS(s) and holding companies were permitted under the existing fast track route. However, pursuant to the recent Amendment, merger/demerger between subsidiaries (not limited to wholly-owned ones) and their holding companies are also allowed under FTM route. This effectively removes the ‘wholly-owned’ limitation and extends the benefit to any subsidiary, whether listed or unlisted.

However, it is worth noting that the fast track route will not be available in cases wherein the Transferor company (whether holding company or subsidiary) is a listed company. That is to say, while subsidiaries can be merged with/demerged into a holding company or vice versa under the fast track route, this is only permissible when the transferor company is not a listed company. 

  1. Scheme of arrangement between two or more Unlisted Companies

Another significant addition is to allow fast track schemes between two or more unlisted companies subject to certain conditions as on 30 days prior to the date of inviting objections from regulatory authorities u/s 233 (1) of the CA, 2013:- 

  1. None of the companies involved should be a section 8 company;
  2.  total outstanding loans, debentures and deposits for each company must be less than ₹200 crores , and 
  3. There must be no default in repayment of any such borrowings. 

All the aforesaid conditions are required to be satisfied on two occasions viz. within 30 days prior to the date of inviting objections from the regulatory authorities u/s 233(1) and on the date of filing of declaration of solvency in form CAA-10. The latter is to be accompanied with a certificate of satisfaction of the conditions above, by the auditor of each of the companies involved, in a newly introduced form CAA-10A, which will form part of the annexure to the respective declarations of solvency. 

It is pertinent to note here that no common shareholding, promoter group, or common control is required between the unlisted companies seeking to merge under this route. In other words, even completely unrelated unlisted companies can now opt for a fast track merger, provided they meet the financial thresholds and other prescribed conditions.

  1. Scheme of arrangement between two or more Fellow subsidiaries

As of now, inter-group arrangements, like schemes between two or more fellow subsidiaries, were excluded from the purview of the FTM route. However, the Amendment now brings schemes between fellow subsidiaries – i.e., two or more subsidiary companies of the same holding company – within the scope of Section 233, provided that the transferor company(ies) is unlisted. Notably, the requirement of being unlisted is applicable only to the transferor company/ies. That is to say, the Transferee Company can be a listed company.

While the amendments have commendably widened the ambit of fast-track mergers to include mergers between fellow subsidiaries and step-down subsidiaries, a regulatory overlap with SEBI LODR framework may still persist. Under Regulation 37 of the SEBI LODR read with SEBI Master Circular dated June 20, 2023, listed entities are required to obtain prior approval from stock exchanges before filing a scheme of arrangement. This requirement is waived only for mergers between a holding company and its wholly-owned subsidiary. 

Given that earlier fellow subsidiaries/ step down subsidiaries were not permitted to opt FTM Route, in an informal guidance, SEBI clarified that this exemption does not extend to structures involving step-down subsidiaries merging into the ultimate parent, thereby requiring compliance with Regulation 37 in such cases. 

Accordingly, while the Companies Act now permits fellow subsidiaries and step-down subsidiaries to utilize the fast-track route, the benefit of exemption from prior SEBI/stock exchange approval may not be available, particularly in cases where the transferee company is listed. Unless SEBI extends the exemption framework, listed entities may still need to follow the standard approval process under Regulation 37, which could offset some of the intended efficiency gains of the FTM mechanism

  1. Reverse Cross-Border Mergers involving Indian WOS of foreign companies

While cross-border mergers are governed under Section 234 of the Act and Rule 25A of the CAA Rules, it is amended to absorb the merger between a foreign holding company and an Indian wholly owned subsidiary, currently covered under sub-rule (5) of Rule 25A, into Rule 25 itself to make the index of companies eligible under the FTM route more comprehensive and complete. 

The additional compliances applicable in such instances are the requirement to obtain prior approval from the RBI, and submission of declaration in form CAA-16 at the stage of submitting application, in case the transferor holding company happens to share a land border with India.

Implications and Potential Practical Challenges

NCLTs are overburdened with the Companies Act cases and IBC cases. As a result, scheme of arrangement cases often receive limited attention and are subject to significant delays. The recent amendments are undoubtedly a step forward in simplifying and accelerating mergers/ demerger processes. However, certain aspects of implementation may give rise to procedural challenges that warrants careful consideration: :

  1. Seeking approval of shareholders and creditors particularly when the transferee company is a listed company

Section 233(1) of the Act requires approval of the members holding 90% of the total number of shares. This threshold has been observed to be onerous, not just practically, but also duly recognised in the CLC Report, 2022, as the requirement is approval by those holding 90%cent of the company’s total share capital and not 90% of shareholders present and voting. This threshold becomes particularly difficult to achieve in the case of listed companies and may significantly delay the approval process, thereby defeating the very objective of fast-tracking mergers.

This was a practical difficulty faced by companies going through this route, as the approving authority i.e. the RDs, of different regions, did not take a consistent approach, some of them warranting compliance with the letters of law. However, with practice it has been observed that obtaining approval of the requisite majority as present and voting is also accepted as sufficient compliance. 

Here, it also becomes important to note that the approval threshold is more stringent in case of FTMs, as compared to arrangements under the NCLT route, which requires a scheme to be approved by three-fourths in majority in an NCLT convened meeting, but the same is again offset by the time and cost involved. 

  1. Scheme where transferor company(ies) / demerging undertaking has immovable properties

The NCLT, constituted under Sections 408 of the Companies Act, 2013, is a quasi-judicial body whose orders carry significant statutory weight and are widely recognized by authorities such as land registrars for purposes like property registration and mutation. Concerns may arise w.r.t. the validity of the RD’s order on such schemes. In this regard, it is to be noted that Regional directors function as an extended administrative arms of the Central Government and orders issued by the RD, are legally on par with those of the NCLT. However, an area of concern remains w.r.t. transfer of immovable property as such a transfer is required to be registered with the local registrars, where practically, RD approved schemes may not be having the same effect as that of NCLT approved scheme.

  1. Deemed Approval within 60 Days

Section 233 (5) of the Act requires RD’s to either approve the Scheme within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of scheme or to file an application before NCLT, if they are of the opinion that such a scheme is not in public interest or in the interest of the creditors.

The section also provides that if the RD does not have any objection to the scheme or it does not file any application under this section before the Tribunal, it shall be deemed that it has no objection to the scheme, and the Scheme will be considered as approved. This “deemed approval” mechanism is in line with international practices, where intra/inter-group restructurings are not typically required to undergo intensive regulatory scrutiny, and schemes are considered approved once sanctioned by shareholders and creditors. For instance, the Companies Act of Japan (Act No. 86 of July 26, 2005) and the Companies Act, 2006 (UK) does not require specific approval of any regulatory authority, except in certain specific circumstances. 

It is also important to note that the RD does not have the power to reject a scheme outright. As held by the Bombay High Court in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Reliance Industries Ltd., that the order of a Court itself constitutes an instrument as it results in the merger and vesting of properties inter-se the merging parties. In cases of deemed approval, there seems to be a gap on whether the shareholder and creditor approved scheme is to be itself construed as the instrument of transfer, as there is no explicit approval order of the RD sanctioning the scheme. On the other hand, if the RD believes the scheme is not in public or creditor interest, the appropriate course is to refer the matter to the NCLT. In such cases, the fast-track process effectively resets, and the scheme follows the standard route before the NCLT, potentially undermining the objective of speed and efficiency that the fast-track mechanism aims to achieve.

  1. Power of RD vis-a-vis NCLT

For schemes sanctioned by the NCLT, any amendment or variation thereto can be carried out by making an application to the tribunal, by way of an interlocutory application, and NCLT, after considering the observations of the regulatory authorities, if any, has the power to pass necessary orders. That to to say, for the Schemes originally sanctioned by the NCLT, any amendment thereto will also be done by NCLT and not any other forum. Here, a question may arise as to whether the RD, which is the ultimate authority to approve fast track schemes, has similar power, or it has to refer the application seeking amendments to the schemes originally approved by it to the NCLT?

It is a settled principle of law that the authority having the power to approve, only has the authority to allow changes therein. Thus, in case of FTMs, if schemes are originally approved by RD, application for amendment thereto may also be preferred before the RD, unless, the RD itself is on the opinion that the matter requires consideration by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 

  1. Regulatory Approvals in Case of Cross-Border Mergers

Regulation 9(1) of the FEMA (Cross-Border Merger) Regulations, 2018, provides that mergers complying with the prescribed framework are deemed to have RBI approval. Yet, as a matter of process, notices of such schemes must now be served on all relevant regulators, including the RBI, SEBI, IRDAI, and PFRDA, for their comments or objections. This strengthens oversight but could also lengthen timelines, as companies may need to wait for regulator clearances before giving effect to the scheme.

  1. Administrative Capacity of RD Offices

A further consideration is the capacity of RD offices to process the increased number of cases that the expanded FTM eligibility is expected to generate. While there are nearly 30 NCLT benches handling merger matters across India, there are only seven RDs, each with jurisdiction over multiple states and union territories. The RD already endowed with oversight of conversion of public company into private company, approval in case of alteration of FY, rectification of name, etc., in addition to the widened ambit of FTMs. This concentration of responsibility may create administrative bottlenecks, and timely disposal will be critical to preserve the efficiency advantage of the fast-track route.

Conclusion

The Amendments mark a progressive step towards making corporate restructurings quicker and more efficient by widening the scope of Fast Track Mergers, introducing financial thresholds for unlisted companies, and streamlining procedural requirements. Importantly, a specific clarification has now been inserted to state that these provisions shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to demergers as well, thereby removing any interpretational ambiguity on the subject, modifying the forms as well. If implemented effectively, these changes have the potential to substantially declog the NCLTs while giving companies a smoother, time-bound alternative for reorganizations.

Read more:

Fast Track Merger- finally on a faster track

MCA enabled fast track route for cross border mergers and added additional requirements in IEPF Rules

Budget 2025: Mergers not to be used for evergreening of losses

Understanding “Undertaking” in the Context of Investment Demergers

/0 Comments/in , , /by

– Barsha Dikshit and Sourish Kundu | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

The meaning of “undertaking” has been one of the most debated issues under Indian company law and tax law, particularly when it comes to shares/investments to be treated as an “undertaking”. While the term intuitively refers to a business or division carried on as a going concern, its application becomes complex when the company’s business primarily consists of holding investments in shares of other entities. This complexity raises important questions about whether such passive investment portfolios can be considered independent undertakings capable of being demerged under Section 2(19AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (now section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 2025). 

This article examines  the statutory framework, relevant judicial precedents, and the practical implications of treating investment division as “undertaking” for companies with diverse investment portfolios.

Meaning of ‘Undertaking’

Section 180(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 restricts the Board of a company from selling, leasing, or otherwise disposing of the whole or substantially the whole of an undertaking without shareholders’ approval by way of special resolution. While the provision does not offer a definitional explanation of what constitutes an “undertaking,” it does lay down quantitative thresholds: 

  • An undertaking is one where investment exceeds 20% of net worth or contributes 20% of total income in the preceding financial year.
  • Disposal of “substantially the whole” of such undertaking means disposal of 20% or more of its value.

This numerical test, merely sets quantitative thresholds to determine when shareholders’ approval is required for the disposal of such an asset. 

To understand what constitutes an “undertaking” and, in particular, whether a passive investment division, essentially a portfolio of shares, can independently qualify as an undertaking, reference can be drawn to the definition of “undertaking” provided under the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as relevant judicial precedents. 

Under the Income-tax Act, 1961, Section 2(19AA) defines the term “demerger”, which requires the transfer of one or more undertakings from the demerged company to the resulting company, such that at least one undertaking remains with the demerged company. The meaning of “undertaking” for this purpose is explained in the Explanation to Section 2(19AA) (now renumbered as Section 2(35) under the Income-tax Act, 2025), as–

“Explanation-1: For the purposes of this clause, “undertaking” shall include any part of an undertaking, or a unit or division of an undertaking or a business activity taken as a whole, but does not include individual assets or liabilities or any combination thereof not constituting a business activity.”

This definition emphasizes the need for functional and operational coherence in what is considered an undertaking, ruling out passive asset transfers that lack an identifiable business character. 

The meaning of the term ‘undertaking’ has also been clarified in several judicial precedents. For instance, in the landmark decision of Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India [[1970] AIR 564], Hon’ble Supreme Court explained that “‘undertaking’ clearly means a going concern with all its rights, liabilities and assets as distinct from the various rights and assets which compose it… is an amalgam of all ingredients of property and are not capable of being dismembered. That would destroy the essence and innate character of the undertaking. In reality the undertaking is a complete and complex weft and the various types of business and assets are threads which cannot be taken apart from the weft.” 

The Court thus highlighted the holistic nature of an undertaking that it is not a disjointed collection of parts, but a complete and functional enterprise. [See also, P.S. Offshore Inter Land Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Bombay Offshore Suppliers and Services Ltd. [[1992] 75 Comp Cas 583 (Bom)].

This brings us to a significant  question: Can a portfolio of shares, held in a company’s books, be regarded as a separate segment or ‘undertaking’? 

This question assumes particular relevance in the context of schemes of arrangement, particularly those involving demergers, where a portfolio of investments is proposed to be transferred to a resulting company. In such schemes, the tax neutrality of the transaction often hinges on whether the transferred segment qualifies as an “undertaking” under the applicable tax laws.

For a unit to be regarded as an undertaking, and for the demerger to be treated as tax-neutral, both the demerged and remaining undertaking must possess the characteristics of a going concern, i.e., each must be capable of independent and sustainable commercial operations with the objective of earning profits. [See: Yallamma Cotton, Woollen and Silk Mills Co. Ltd., In re [[1970] 40 Comp Cas 466]]

This criteria becomes particularly nuanced when the subject of demerger is a mere pool of passive investments, rather than an operational business unit. The key consideration is whether such a portfolio, in itself, demonstrates the organisational integrity, continuity of activity, and profit-making intent sufficient to satisfy the definition of an “undertaking”.

One of the most notable rulings on this issue is the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in the case of Grasim Investments Ltd. v. ACIT, wherein the Tribunal was called upon to examine whether a division engaged primarily in holding and managing investments in shares could be treated as an undertaking for the purposes of a tax-neutral demerger under Section 2(19AA) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

The ITAT held that a mere pool of passive investments does not, by itself, constitute an undertaking. To qualify as an undertaking, the investment division must be more than a collection of financial assets; it must constitute a distinct business activity carried on with a certain degree of autonomy. The Tribunal emphasized factors such as, presence of separate books of account, an identifiable organizational structure, and the existence of management and decision-making functions related specifically to the investment activity and the capability of generating independent business income, to consider a division as an ‘undertaking.

In one of the recent rulings in the matter of Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited v DCIT, 2025 171, dated 18th February, 2025, Ahmedabad ITAT reiterated the principles governing tax neutral merger. 

In this case, the assessee transferred only a portfolio of investments (constituting the so-called “Treasury Segment”) to the resulting company, while retaining the associated liabilities. The assessee attempted to justify this by arguing that the liabilities pertained to other business divisions and not to the Treasury Segment. However, the Tribunal rejected this explanation, holding that such selective transfer is contrary to the statutory mandate. The Tribunal emphasized that for a transaction to qualify as a tax-neutral demerger, it must strictly comply with the conditions prescribed under Section 2(19AA) of the Act. One of the key requirements of which is that all the assets and liabilities pertaining to the transferred undertaking must be transferred to the resulting company.

Treating block of investments as separate undertakings

The real difficulty lies in the case of investment companies, or companies holding multiple blocks of shares in different entities. Can each such block of investments be regarded as a separate undertaking for purposes of demerger?

Here it becomes important to differentiate between active investments and passive investments. For instance, holdings in group companies, such as subsidiaries or associates, may be classified as active investments, given the element of strategic control or influence. On the other hand, investments in mutual funds, debt instruments, or derivatives are typically treated as passive investments, lacking operational involvement.

While judicial decisions have considered active investments as a separate undertaking, investment in mutual funds, securities, or similar financial instruments, when held passively, are typically regarded as individual assets forming part of a company’s investment portfolio , majorly on the ground that they do not, by themselves, represent a business or functional unit capable of independent operation. 

In CIT v. UTV Software Communication Ltd. the Bombay High Court drew a sharp distinction between transfer of shares and transfer of an undertaking. The Court held that a mere transfer of shareholding, even to the extent of 49%, does not amount to a transfer of an “undertaking” under Section 2(42C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (now Section 2(103) of the 2025 Act). Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in Vodafone International Holdings and Bacha F. Guzdar, it concluded that passive shareholding does not confer ownership of the underlying business and cannot constitute an undertaking for tax or restructuring purposes.

However, the author humbly differs from the view expressed by the Bombay High Court. In the author’s opinion, such matters must be examined in light of the prevailing corporate structures wherein large business groups operate distinct business verticals through separate legal entities, including subsidiaries, joint ventures, and associates. In such cases, transfer of shares in a subsidiary or associate company may, in substance, result in divestment of an entire business segment.

Moreover, as discussed above, section 180(1)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides a quantitative definition of ‘undertaking’ and mandates shareholders’ approval by special resolution for the sale, lease, or disposal of a company’s undertaking. In this context, treating the transfer of shareholding, as a mere transfer of shares and not an undertaking, may arguably be a  narrow interpretation, particularly when the transaction has the effect of transferring operational control and revenue-generating capabilities.

The author’s view also finds support in jurisprudence such as the Grasim Industries Ltd. ruling (Supra), where a financial services division, primarily holding investments in shares and securities, was accepted as a valid “undertaking” for the purposes of demerger under Section 2(19AA) of the Act. 

Conclusion

The concept of “undertaking” in Indian law is broader than a mere division of physical assets; it captures the idea of a self-sustaining business activity. In the context of investments, while passive shareholding may not qualify, an organised investment division with identifiable assets, liabilities, and management can constitute an undertaking capable of demerger. Thus, companies holding multiple investment portfolios may, subject to careful structuring, demerge them into resulting companies under sections 230-232 of the Companies Act and section 2(19AA) of the Income-tax Act.

Read More:

Stricter framework for sale, lease or disposal of undertaking by a listed entity

Can companies donate out all their assets?

12 hours Certificate Course on Nuts and Bolts of Related Party Transactions

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

Register here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeC4uYjZyCvMGMebgW2WOSfxDLryEu50LhbKCpvcIPro28JjQ/viewform

Workshop on Related Party Transactions.pptxDownload

Repetitive Overhaul: RPT regime to get softer

Related Party Transactions- Resource Centre

FAQs on Standards for minimum information to be disclosed for RPT approval

Paradox of privacy

/0 Comments/in , , , /by
Whether private NBFCs-ML are required to appoint IDs?

– Neha Malu, Associate | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Independent directors have long been regarded as critical instruments of corporate governance. They bring fresh perspectives, specialized knowledge and most importantly, an element of unbiased oversight to board deliberations. Think of them as neutral referees who ensure fair play in business operations and uphold the integrity of boardroom decisions. Their presence helps reduce conflicts of interest, curb excessive promoter influence and encourage more balanced and professionally informed decision-making.

Under the Companies Act, 2013, section 149 read with rule 4 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014 lays down the categories of companies that are mandatorily required to appoint independent directors[1]. These categories do not include private companies. The rationale is intuitive: private companies, by their very nature of being closely held, are presumed to function under greater internal control, thereby reducing the perceived need for external board oversight. The whole basis of “privacy” of a private company will be frustrated if there are independent persons on its board.

Further, wholly owned subsidiaries are explicitly exempted from the requirement to appoint independent directors under rule 4(2), regardless of their nature or size.

And accordingly, a point of regulatory discussion arises in the case of (i) private NBFCs and (ii) NBFCs that are wholly owned subsidiaries, classified in the middle layer or above under the SBR Master Directions. While the Companies Act, 2013 does not mandate the appointment of independent directors for private companies and explicitly exempts WOS from such requirement, the corporate governance provisions under the SBR Master Directions require the constitution of certain committees, the composition of which hints towards the presence of independent directors.

This gives rise to a key question: Does a private NBFC or a wholly owned subsidiary, solely by virtue of its classification under the middle layer or above, become subject to an obligation to appoint independent directors?

Committees for NBFC-ML and above, the composition of which includes IDs

Upon classification as an NBFC-ML or above, conformity with corporate governance standards becomes applicable. Below we discuss specifically about the committees, the composition of which also includes IDs:

Name of the CommitteeCompositionRemarks
Audit Committee [Para 94.1 of the SBR Master Directions]Audit Committee, consisting of not less than three members of its Board of Directors. If an NBFC is required to constitute AC under section 177 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Committee so constituted shall be treated as the AC for the purpose of this para 94.1.As per section 177, an AC shall comprise a minimum of  three directors, with Independent Directors forming a majority. Hence, in case the NBFC is not covered under the provisions of section 177, the same may be constituted with any three directors, not necessarily being independent directors.
Nomination and Remuneration Committee [Para 94.2 of the SBR Master Directions]Composition will be as per section 178 of the Companies Act, 2013.The provisions indicate that the NRC shall have the constitution, powers, functions and duties as laid down in section 178. In this context, Companies Act requires every NRC to consist of at least three non-executive directors, out of which not less than one-half should be independent directors.
IT Strategy Committee [Para 6 of the Master Direction on Information Technology Governance, Risk, Controls and Assurance Practices]The Committee shall be a Board-level IT Strategy Committee (a) Minimum of three directors as members (b) The Chairperson of the ITSC shall be an independent director and have substantial IT expertise in managing/ guiding information technology initiatives (c) Members are technically competent (d) CISO and Head of IT to be permanent inviteeChairperson of the Committee is required to be an ID.
Review Committee [Master Direction on Treatment of Wilful Defaulters and Large Defaulters]The Composition of the Committee shall be as follows: The MD/ CEO as chairperson; and Two independent directors or non-executive directors or equivalent officials serving as members.Where the NBFC has not appointed IDs, NEDs or equivalent officials to serve as members of the Committee.

Divergent Market Practices

With respect to appointment of IDs on the Board and induction in the Committees, two interpretations are seen in practice in the case of private companies and WOS:

First, since the Companies Act does not mandate the appointment of independent directors in the case of private companies and explicitly exempts WOS, private NBFCs and WOS often rely on these statutory exemptions. The SBR Master Directions make a general reference to the Companies Act without distinguishing between company categories, which further supports the view that these entities constitute the relevant committees without appointing independent directors.

Second, given that NBFCs in the middle layer or above have crossed the ₹1,000 crore asset threshold and fall under enhanced regulatory scrutiny, some take the view that such entities should align with the intended governance standards and appoint independent directors, even if not required under the Companies Act.

Closing thoughts

The SBR Framework takes into account the systemic concerns associated with different NBFCs and thus classifies them into different layers. The corporate governance norms are applicable to ML, UL and TL NBFCs, which, given their asset sizes, are expected to operate at huge volumes and carry a great magnitude of risks. Such NBFCs may have access to public funds (by way of bank borrowings, debenture issuance etc.), wherein large lenders or public would have exposures and consequent high systemic risks. Hence, looking at the constitution (that is whether the NBFC is a private limited or public limited) becomes less important, and looking at the size, activity and function becomes more important. 

Thus, it may not be right to conclude that NBFCs registered as private companies and WOS can do away with the mandatory composition prescriptions merely due to the constitutional form of their entity. Looking at the intent and idea of SBR Framework, the applicable NBFCs may be required to appoint independent directors irrespective of the form of their constitution. The scale-based regulation emanates from the idea that NBFCs having high risk should be effectively monitored. Thus, the regulations should be followed in spirit to effectively mitigate the risks arising in the course of the NBFC’s functioning.

[1] Pursuant to the provisions of section 149(4) of the Companies Act read with rule 4 of the Companies (Appointment and Qualifications of Directors) Rules, 2014, following companies are mandatorily required to appoint independent directions: listed companies, public companies having paid up share capital of ten crore rupees or more; or turnover of one hundred crore rupees or more; or having in aggregate, outstanding loans, debentures and deposits, exceeding fifty crore rupees as per the latest audited financial statements.

Read more:

What is a non-banking financial company?
Resources on Scale Based Regulations