comments on dipp circular

10
G-60(LGF),eastofkailash,newdelhi-110065 Tel:+91-11-40634891 Fax:+91-11-46107210 February 15, 2011 To, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011. Attention: Mr. Deepak Narain (Director) Dear Sir, Re: Comments on the Circular 2 of 2010- Consolidated FDI Policy issued on 30.09.2010 We are law firm based at New Delhi.  We refer to thePress Release dated January 14, 2011 inviting comments on Circular 2 of 2010- Consolidated FDI Policy on 30.09.2010 (the Circular”) released by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of Commerce and Industry ( “DIPP”). We are happy to provide you our comments and would be grateful if you could consider our following comments, while finalizi ng the next edition of Consolidated FDI Policy Circular: 1. Legal Basis of the FDI Policy 1.1 A plain reading of paragraph 1.1.5 of the Circular seems to suggest that DIPP believes that the legal basis of the FDI policy issued by DIPP is the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”). This belief needs a review in light of the analysis in paras 1.2 to 1.12 below. 1.2 Section 46 of FEMA empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the provisions of FEMA. Similarly, Section 47 of FEMA empowers the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI ”) to make regulations to carry out the provisions of FEMA. Section 46(2) empowers the Central Government to make rules, inter alia, to impose reasonable restrictions on current account transaction under section 5, whereas section 47(2) empowers the RBI to make regulations on capital account transactions. A clear harmonious construction of the two provisions would suggest that at least to the extent enumerated in Section 46 and section 47, there should be no overlap in the powers of the Central Government and the RBI to make delegated legislations. This would mean that on the matters specifically set out in Section 46(2), Central Government (and not the RBI) is empowered to make rules, while on the matters set out in Section 47(2) of FEMA, RBI (and not the Central Government) is empowered to make regulations. 1.3 Section 47(2) of FEMA, inter alia, provides that the RBI may make regulations to provide for the permissible classes of capital account transactions, the limits of admissibility of foreign exchange for such transactions, and the prohibition, restriction or regulation of certain capital account transactions under Section 6.

Upload: abhishek-nath-tripathi

Post on 07-Apr-2018

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 1/9

G-60(LGF),eastofkailash,newdelhi-110065

Tel:+91-11-40634891 Fax:+91-11-46107210

February 15, 2011

To,

Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion,

Ministry of Commerce & Industry,

Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi- 110011.

Attention: Mr. Deepak Narain (Director)

Dear Sir,

Re: Comments on the Circular 2 of 2010- Consolidated FDI Policy issued on 30.09.2010

We are law firm based at New Delhi. We refer to thePress Release dated January 14, 2011

inviting comments on Circular 2 of 2010- Consolidated FDI Policy on 30.09.2010 (the

“Circular”) released by the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, Ministry of 

Commerce and Industry ( “DIPP”).

We are happy to provide you our comments and would be grateful if you could consider our

following comments, while finalizing the next edition of Consolidated FDI Policy Circular:

1.  Legal Basis of the FDI Policy

1.1  A plain reading of paragraph 1.1.5 of the Circular seems to suggest that DIPP believes

that the legal basis of the FDI policy issued by DIPP is the Foreign Exchange

Management Act, 1999 (“FEMA”). This belief needs a review in light of the analysis

in paras 1.2 to 1.12 below.

1.2  Section 46 of FEMA empowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out

the provisions of FEMA. Similarly, Section 47 of FEMA empowers the Reserve Bank

of India (“RBI”) to make regulations to carry out the provisions of FEMA. Section

46(2) empowers the Central Government to make rules, inter alia, to impose

reasonable restrictions on current account transaction under section 5, whereas section

47(2) empowers the RBI to make regulations on capital account transactions. A clearharmonious construction of the two provisions would suggest that at least to the

extent enumerated in Section 46 and section 47, there should be no overlap in the

powers of the Central Government and the RBI to make delegated legislations. This

would mean that on the matters specifically set out in Section 46(2), Central

Government (and not the RBI) is empowered to make rules, while on the matters set

out in Section 47(2) of FEMA, RBI (and not the Central Government) is empoweredto make regulations.

1.3  Section 47(2) of FEMA, inter alia, provides that the RBI may make regulations to

provide for the permissible classes of capital account transactions, the limits of 

admissibility of foreign exchange for such transactions, and the prohibition,restriction or regulation of certain capital account transactions under Section 6.

Page 2: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 2/9

 Page 2 of 9

Transfer or issue of security by persons resident outside India is a deemed capitalaccount transaction under Section 6 of FEMA.

1.4  In exercise of their respective powers, the Central Government has, very rightly,

issued Foreign Exchange Management (Current Account Transactions) Rules, 2000,

whereas Foreign Exchange Management (Permissible Capital Account Transaction),

Regulations, 2000 has been issued by RBI for regulating capital account transactions.

1.5  Investment in India by a person resident outside of the following nature is recognized

as a capital account transaction under Schedule II of Foreign Exchange Management

(Permissible Capital Account Transaction), Regulations, 2000:

1.5.1  issue of security by a body, body corporate or an entity in India and investment

therein by a person resident outside India; and

1.5.2  investment by way of contribution by a person resident outside India to the capital

of a firm or proprietorship concern or an association of person in India.

1.6  In light of the above, a view that the FDI Policy has been issued under FEMA may

run counter to the scheme set out under FEMA. Very clearly, the scheme of 

distribution of powers between the RBI and the Central Government under FEMA is

that RBI regulates capital account transactions, and the Central Government regulates

current account transactions. RBI may, however, consult with the Central

Government in regulating the capital account transactions.

1.7  The only reference to the FDI Policy under various regulations issued under FEMA

may be found in Schedule-I of the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue

of Security to persons resident outside India) Regulations (“Transfer Regulations”).

Para 2 of Schedule 1 of the Transfer Regulations makes a reference to the “IndustrialPolicy and Procedures as notified by Secretariat for Industrial Assistance (SIA) in the

Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India”, which is often referred to

as the FDI Policy.

1.8  The reference in para 2 is more in the nature of recognition of an existing policy,

rather than a delegation to the Government of India to make the FDI Policy. It may be

pertinent to note that it is a settled principle under administrative law that a delegate

cannot further sub-delegate, unless the legislation empowers it to sub-delegate. Since

RBI is the authority under FEMA, which has been entrusted with the power to make

delegated legislation on capital account transactions, in absence of a clear authority to

sub-delegate under FEMA, it cannot further sub-delegate that power to any otherauthority (including the Government).

1.9  Further, the FDI policy has been in existence even before introduction of FEMA andthe rules and regulations issued thereunder. It was earlier pronounced in the form of 

Press Notes issued by the DIPP. Therefore, the argument that FEMA is the legal basis

for the FDI Policy becomes even weaker.

1.10  There is a view that the Central Government derives its power to pronounce the FDI

Policy under the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951 (“IDRA”).

Another view suggests that Central Government is empowered to make policy

decisions under the executive powers of the Union set out in Article 73, of the

Constitution of India.

Page 3: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 3/9

 Page 3 of 9

1.11  It is important for the DIPP to identify the legal regime under which it derives theauthority to pronounce the FDI Policy. The issue is not merely academic, as it may

have serious implications on the enforceability of the FDI Policy. Some of the

consequences are outlined below:

1.11.1  If para 2 of Schedule 1 of the Transfer Regulations is the basis of the FDI Policy,

then it is pertinent to note that Schedule 1 of the Transfer Regulations has limited

application to investments under the FDI Scheme. However, the FDI Policy set

out in Circular clearly goes beyond Schedule 1 of Transfer Regulations, and even

regulates foreign investment under the portfolio investment scheme (namelySchedule 2 of the Transfer Regulations), NRI investment under the portfolio

investment scheme (namely Schedule 3 of the Transfer Regulations), and FVCI

investment under the venture capital investment route (Schedule 6 of the Transfer

Regulations). An extreme view may suggest that violation of the FDI Policy so

long as it does not pertain to foreign investments in Schedule 1 may not attractpenal provisions under FEMA, as by virtue of para 2 of Schedule 1 Central

Government’s authority extends only to Schedule 1 investments. If this view isupheld in a court of law, then there will be no violation of FEMA if the

investments under other schedules (except Schedule 1 of the Transfer

Regulations) are not compliant with the FDI Policy.

1.11.2  If IDRA is the legal basis for the FDI Policy, the penal consequences of breach of 

the FDI Policy will have to be found under IDRA. In such cases, consequences

under FEMA can, at best, extend to the violations of the FDI Policy for

investments under Schedule 1 of the Transfer Regulations.

1.11.3  If the executive powers of the Union is the basis of the FDI Policy, the penalconsequences will be further diluted. In this scenario as well, the violation of the

FDI Policy only to the extent of investments under Schedule 1 of the Transfer

Regulations will be actionable under FEMA.

1.12  In light of the above, we request the DIPP to consider this issue and clearly identifythe legislative authority under which the FDI Policy is being issued, particularly with

a view to make its breach actionable under law.

2.  Investment by Foreign Venture Capital Investors

2.1  Paragraph 1.1.2 of the Circular recognizes foreign investment only under two routes

viz. (i) Foreign Direct Investment (“FDI”); and (ii) Foreign Portfolio Investment.

2.2  FEMA read with the Transfer Regulations, recognizes investment by Foreign Venture

Capital Investors registered with SEBI (“FVCI”) in Indian venture capital funds and

venture capital undertakings, as a separate route of foreign investment (under

Schedule 6 of the Transfer Regulations).

2.3  Reference of FVCI has also been made in following paragraphs of Circular:

2.3.1  FVCI has been defined under paragraph 2.1.16.

2.3.2  Paragraph 3.1.6 dealing with the eligibility conditions for investing in India allows

FVCI to invest as registered FVCI and also as a non-resident entity under FDI

route, subject to applicable regulations issued by Securities and Exchange Board

of India (“SEBI”) & Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”) and the FDI policy.

Page 4: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 4/9

 Page 4 of 9

2.4  Paragraph 4.1.2 dealing with computation of the indirect foreign investment in anIndian company states that foreign investment shall include all types of foreign

investment. However, while specifying the specific schedules of the Transfer

Regulations, the same paragraph no mention has been made to Schedule 6 of theTransfer Regulations (dealing with the FVCI investments). This leads to a confusion

as to whether investment by FVCI’s investment in an Indian venture capital

undertaking or a venture capital fund under Schedule 6 of the Transfer Regulations

ought to be considered as foreign investment or not.

2.5  We believe that investment made by FVCI is one of the kinds of foreign investmentrecognized under the Transfer Regulations. There may be valid policy rationales for

treating FVCI investments independently, however, if DIPP belives that the FVCI’s

investments need to be treated differently, it needs to expressly state so in the policy.

Therefore, we request you to clarify this position under the third edition of the

consolidated FDI policy document.3.  Pricing of the Convertible Capital Instruments

3.1  Paragraph 3.2.1 of the Circular provides that the pricing of the capital instruments like

compulsorily and mandatorily convertible debentures, fully, compulsorily and

mandatorily convertible preference etc. should be decided/determined upfront at the

time of issue of the instruments.

3.2  The pricing of the capital instrument can be determined upfront in any of the

following manner:

3.2.1  by fixing the conversion ratio of the convertible instruments to the equity shares to

be allotted upon conversion, or3.2.2  by upfront fixing the maximum number of equity shares that can be allotted

against all the convertible debentures issued at date of issuance.

3.3  The difference between the fixation of the pricing mechanism under point 3.2.1 and

point 3.2.2 above is following:

3.3.1  As per point 3.2.1 the exact number of equity share(s) that can be allotted againstconvertible instrument(s) is frozen. The investee company then cannot issue any

number of shares more or less than the exact number of shares frozen upfront at

the time of issuance of convertible instruments. Whereas, as per point 3.2.2 only

the maximum number of equity shares to be allotted against the total numberconvertible instruments at the time of conversion has to be fixed. The investee

company can issue any number of shares subject to the maximum of the limit

specified upfront at the time of issuance of convertible instruments.

3.3.2  The intent behind subscribing to a convertible instrument of a company as against

the equity shares, most often, is the flexibility of adjusting the number of equity

shares to be subscribed on the basis of the performance of the company in future.

Such flexibility is desirable for attracting private equity investments. The pricing

mechanism under point 3.2.2 above provides such flexibility to the investor, while

still complying with the minimum pricing requirement prescribed under the law.

Since the instrument is mandatorily convertible, there is no risk of redemption,

and therefore capital flight.

Page 5: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 5/9

 Page 5 of 9

3.3.3  In view of the above, we strongly recommend that the third edition of theconsolidated FDI policy document should clearly permit Indian companies to

comply with the pricing guidelines at the time of issuance of the instrument by

specifying the maximum number of equity shares that the convertible instrumentsshall convert into.

4.  KYC requirement under Form FC-TRS

4.3  Paragraph 3.4.4(i)(h) of the Circular contemplates a situation where at the time of 

transfer of shares from resident t o  non-resident, the remittance receiving AD

Category-I bank is different from the AD Category-I bank handling the transfer

transaction. In such a scenario, the Circular states that Know Your Customer (KYC)

check should be carried out by the remittance receiving bank and the KYC report

shall be submitted by the customer to the AD Category-I bank carrying out thetransaction along with the Form FC-TRS. Incidentally, this stipulation is similar to the

one that has been prescribed by the RBI for transfer of shares.

4.4  Practical difficulties are faced in obtaining the KYC report from the remittance

receiving bank. Often, the when the funds hit the bank of the transferor, the transferor

is unaware whether the said funds have been received by the bank directly, or through

another Indian bank (which becomes the remittance receiving bank). Considerable

time gets spent in identifying the source of funds. Further complications arise as in

such cases the transferor (in whose bank account the funds are received) is not theclient of the remittance receiving bank. The stipulated time limit of sixty (60) days

often lapses in merely identifying the relevant bank, and thereafter tracking the

relevant transaction and obtaining the KYC certificate. Very often it is the non-

corporation of the remittance receiving AD Category-I bank that renders the customerincapable of filing form FC-TRS within the stipulated time, without any fault of their

own.

4.5  In view of the same, we strongly recommend that the transfer handling bank (i.e. the

bank that ultimately receives that funds) be made liable to process the application forprocuring the KYC certificate from the remitter’s overseas bank, as the banks alone

possess the relevant details of remittance and fund transfer instructions, which are

invariably required to coordinate the KYC generation process.

5.  Valuation for the downstream investment by an Indian Company

5.3  Paragraph 4.6.6(iii) of the Circular provides that for operating-cum-investing

companies and investing companies, the downstream investments can be made

subject to the applicable SEBI/RBI guidelines issued forissue/transfer/pricing/valuation of shares.

5.4  It may be noted that the SEBI/RBI guidelines for transfer/issue of shares of a listed

and an unlisted company under Chapter 3 of the Circular are those applicable to

transactions between a person resident outside India and person resident in India.

Since downstream investment envisages transaction between two companies resident

in India, the said guidelines will not have any application as such. In addition, since

the transaction does not involve in inflow or outflow of foreign exchange, even if 

such guidelines were to be applied, it is too onerous a condition, without any

corresponding benefits to Indian foreign exchange balance.

Page 6: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 6/9

 Page 6 of 9

5.5  Accordingly, we recommend removal of Paragraph 4.6.6(iii) of the Circular.

6.  Reconsideration of the Letter of Approval

6.3  Paragraph 4.7.10 of the Circular provides that no condition specific to the letter of approval issued to a non-resident investor would be changed or additional condition

imposed subsequent to the issue of a letter of approval.

6.4  Please clarify if Foreign Investment Promotion Board (“FIPB”) will not entertain any

further application/letter filed for, inter alia, any of the following purposes:

6.4.3  clarifying any of the submission made by non-resident investor, which may have

been misunderstood by FIPB, or

6.2.2  seeking expansion of the scope of the approval granted by FIPB, or

reconsideration of the approval terms or rejection of the application.

7.  Investor’s obligation to obtain necessary approvals for the Project

7.2  Point 4 of Paragraph 5.2.13.2 of the Circular requires that at least 50% of the project

to be developed within a period of 5 years from the date of obtaining all statutory

clearances. For this purpose, it further requires the investor to provide for the

infrastructure and mandates the investor to obtain the completion certificate from the

concerned local body/service agency, before investor disposes of serviced housing

plots. Further, point 6 of the same paragraph provides for the investor/investee

company to obtain all necessary approvals for the project.

7.3  We submit that an investor in equity share capital is distinct from the company that it

invests in. Investor is the supplier of the capital, whereas the execution of the project

is the responsibility of the project company. Most local authorities require the Indianproject company to be the applicant. Therefore, the project company is usually not

only responsible for making application for approvals but also the primary person in

control of the development of the project vis-à-vis the authorities, with no control or

supervision available with the investor.

7.4  Therefore, we believe that obtaining approvals/permission/licenses for the execution

of the project and complying with them should be the responsibility of the project

company and not the investor. Accordingly, in case of breach of any of the conditions

imposed by the law or under any of the approvals/permission/licenses, the investor

should not be held liable for the same, unless it can be demonstrated that the

approvals/ permissions/ licenses could not be obtained due to any act or omission of the investor.

7.5  In view of the above, we request you to clarify the Investor shall be liable only if 

approvals/ permissions/ licenses could not be obtained due to any act or omission of 

the investor.

8.  FDI in Non-Banking Finance Companies

8.2  Paragraph 5.2.18 of the Circular list out 18 categories of the Non-Banking Finance

Companies (“NBFCs”) in which FDI is permitted under the automatic route. Further,the general permission for transfer of shares from persons resident in India to persons

resident outside India is not available in case of NBFCs.

Page 7: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 7/9

 Page 7 of 9

8.3  NBFC has been defined under Section 45I(f) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934as

“(i) a financial institution which is a company;

(ii) a non-banking institution which is a company and which has as its principal business the receiving of deposits, under any scheme or arrangement or in any other

manner, or lending in any manner;

(iii) such other non-banking institution or class of such institutions, as the Bank may,

with the previous approval of the Central Government and by notification in the

Official Gazette, specify.”

8.4  Some categories of the NBFCs listed out in para 5.2.18 do not satisfy the test of being

the NBFCs under the RBI Act. While there are clear guidelines for determination of 

an NBFC under the RBI Act, it is difficult to decipher a definition or clear guidelines

on what would constitute an NBFC under the Circular. We understand that automatic

route of foreign investment is available only in the specified 18 NBFCs, and no other.Further, it is unclear as to which category of NBFCs does the general permission for

transfer of shares from resident to non-residents apply to: those falling under thedefinition of NBFC under the RBI Act, or the 18 categories specified in para 5.2.18.

8.5  In view of the above, please clarify the following in the forthcoming consolidated FDI

policy:

8.5.2  Whether the NBFC as defined in paragraph 5.2.18 is the same as the NBFCdefined under Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934? Or

8.5.3  Whether the NBFCs as understood under FDI Policy is a category distinct from

the one defined under the RBI Act? If yes, then please provide a suitable

definition for the same.

8.5.4  Whether foreign investment in an NBFC which does not find place in one of the

categories mentioned in paragraph 5.2.18 is allowed or prohibited?

9.  Minimum Capitalization by payment of share premium

9.2  The note to paragraph 5.2 of the Circular provides that the minimum capitalization

includes share premium received along-with the face value of the share, only when it

is received by the company upon issue of the shares to the non-resident investor. It

further provides that any amount paid by the transferee during post-issue transfer of 

shares beyond the issue price of the share, cannot be taken into account while

calculating minimum capitalization requirement.

9.3  It is unclear, however, if in the event the shares are sold to a non-resident at a price

which is lower than the issue price of shares to the Indian promoter, would the issueprice paid by the Indian promoter or the lower price paid by the non-resident

purchaser to the Indian promoter be considered for calculating the minimum

capitalization. Please clarify this position in the forthcoming FDI Policy.

10.  FDI in Trust

10.2  Para 3.3.3, prescribes that ‘FDI in Trusts other than VCF is not permitted .’ FDI has

been defined in Paragraph 2.1.12 to mean an ‘ investment by non-resident 

entity/person resident outside India in the capital of an Indian company under

Schedule I of FEM (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India)

Page 8: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 8/9

 Page 8 of 9

  Regulations, 2000’. Therefore, the definition of FDI in the Circular itself contemplates investments in companies alone, and not in trusts, societies or other

similar entities.

10.3  Interestingly, the definition of ‘security’ under FEMA has merely incorporated mutual

fund units or units of UTI as securities. Units of any other trusts should not fall within

the meaning of ‘security’ under FEMA. In fact, ‘units of a trust’ simpliciter do not

find mention in the definition of ‘security’ under FEMA.

10.4  Further, contributions to charitable trusts is regulated under a distinct regulatory

regime envisaged under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act. 1976. Therefore,

the regulations set out under the FDI Policy should, ideally, not apply to such

contributions to trusts.

10.5  At best, the FDI Policy should regulate only such investments in trusts, which confer

some proprietary benefits on the investor into the trust units. Therefore, we stronglyrecommend that only proprietary investments in trusts should be regulated under the

FDI Policy. Contributions of non-proprietary nature should continue to remain

regulated under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 and not under FEMA

as such.

11.  Repatriation of amount invested in Partnership Firm

11.2  Paragraph 3.3.2 (c) and also Regulation 4 (c) of the Foreign Exchange Management

(Investment in Firm or Proprietary Concern in India) Regulations, 2000 provides thatthe amount invested by a non-resident Indian or a person of Indian origin by way of 

contribution to the capital of a firm cannot be repatriated outside India.

Further, Regulation 5 of the above regulations provides that a firm in India may makethe payment to or for the credit of a non-resident Indian or a person of Indian origin,

the sum invested by such person or the income accruing to such person by way of 

profit on such investment. For the sake of convenience, the Regulation 5 of Foreign

Exchange Management (Investment in Firm or Proprietary Concern in India)

Regulations, 2000 is reproduced below:

“ 5.   Permission to a firm or a proprietary concern to make payment to a non-

resident Indian or a person of Indian origin who has made investment 

 A firm or a proprietary concern in India may make payment to or for the credit of a

nonresident Indian or a person of Indian origin the sum invested by such person inthat firm or the proprietary concern or the income accruing to such person by way of 

 profit on such investment.”

11.3  A reading of the above Regulation 5 suggests that  both the amount invested and the

income accrued by way of profit on investment to a non-resident Indian, can be

repatriated. On the contrary, Regulation 4 that allows investment by a non-residentIndian by way of contribution to the capital of a firm, under sub-regulation

(c) prohibits repatriation of such invested amount.

11.4  While this issue has not been specifically dealt with in Circular 2, since the FDI

Policy seeks to consolidate the entire regulatory regime on foreign investment, kindly

confirm in the forthcoming consolidated FDI policy document, which one of thefollowing understandings is correct:

Page 9: Comments on DIPP Circular

8/6/2019 Comments on DIPP Circular

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comments-on-dipp-circular 9/9

 Page 9 of 9

11.4.2  A non-resident Indian, who has contributed to the capital of firm is allowed torepatriate only the income accrued to such person by way of profit on investment;

or

11.4.3  A non-resident Indian, who has contributed to the capital of firm is allowed to

repatriate both the amount invested and the income accrued to such person by

way of profit on investment.

Please feel free to contact any of the following counsels for any clarifications:

Abhishek Tripathi – [email protected]

Shivendra Singh – [email protected]

Yours Sincerely,

Abhishek Nath Tripathi

On behalf of 

Sarthak- Advocates & Solicitors

New Delhi