Posted on

RBI Rationalized Reporting Process for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)

iSPIRT is pursuing the Stay-in-India Checklist 2.0 with Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Government of India, targeted to bring Ease of Doing Business for start-ups.

Our efforts gained momentum with DPIIT’s Regulatory Roundtables since August 2022. Reserve Bank of India has further eased the reporting of FDI on the FIRMS portal.  The item was on the list of issues that were taken up with RBI through DPIIT.

The new announcement called “Foreign Investment in India – Rationalisation of Reporting” has been announced vide circular no. RBI/2022-23/160 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 22 Dated January 04, 2023. Please visit the RBI site on linked here.

The announcement is expected to further ease the reporting of the foreign direct investment received.

Details of the Reform Measure

In its effort to tout India as an attractive investment destination, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has released the RBI/2022-23/160 A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 22 on 4 January 2023, which brings about certain reforms in the reporting process in the Single Master Form (SMF) on the FIRMS portal. The SMF is a form which integrates the reporting structure of various types of foreign investment in India. It has implemented the following changes with respect to reporting in the SMF on the FIRMS portal:

  • The forms submitted on the portal will now be auto-acknowledged with a time stamp and an auto-generated email will be sent to the applicant. The AD banks will have to verify the same within 5 (five) working days based on the documents uploaded.
  • The system would automatically identify a delay in reporting if any.
  • For forms filed with a delay of less than or equal to 3 (three) years, the AD bank will approve the same, subject to the payment of LSF.
  • The LSF will be computed by the system, and an e-mail will be sent to the applicant and the concerned Regional Office (RO) of the RBI, specifying the amount and the timeline within which the LSF is to be paid to the concerned RO.
  • Once the LSF amount is realised, the concerned RO will update the status in the FIRMS portal, and the updated status will be communicated to the applicant through a system-generated e-mail, which can also be viewed in the FIRMS portal.
  • The AD bank will approve the forms filed with a delay greater than three years, subject to the compounding of the contravention. The applicant may thereafter approach the RBI with their application for compounding.
  • The remarks of the AD Bank for rejection of forms, if any, will be communicated to the applicant through a system-generated e-mail and the same can also be viewed in the FIRMS portal.

The resulting effects of the RBI circular

1.   Auto acknowledgement of SMF

While the rationalisation of the reporting process is a welcome move, and the auto acknowledgement of forms will bring comfort to the applicants after filing the form, we are receiving mixed reactions from stakeholders with regard to the verification of the forms submitted by the applicants within the 5 (five) working day window. Given that there are no overarching guidelines on the format of documents required for filing Form FC-GPR and Form FC-TRS, and the format differs from bank to bank, it may be helpful if banks were to consider offering pre-vetting services in relation to reporting for cross-border transactions.

The likely result of an AD bank not approving the form within 5 days will be auto-approval of the form.

The circular is silent on what happens in the event an authorised dealer (Bank) isn’t satisfied with the details. It seems, in such an event, what could have been approved with a few follow-up queries will have to be rejected within the 5-day window, if the queries remain unanswered.

Separately, we also believe that a 5-day window is very short given the complexity that can arise with some filings. Banks and their regulatory teams also usually work only till 5:00 PM (and cannot, in any case, be expected to work 24×7), so if a form is submitted close to or after 5:00 PM, an applicant may already have lost close to a day.

2.   Online calculation of late submission fee.

Auto-identification of a delay in reporting and calculation of the late submission fee (LSF) by the system will likely be greatly appreciated by stakeholders. Prior to this reform, if an applicant received an email from the RBI regarding the LSF, the applicant would have to draw a demand draft in favour of the RBI, which would have to be acknowledged by the RBI through email. While the process was efficient and hasn’t changed post the amendment, there have been multiple instances of applicants not having a record of the acknowledgement with them after a few years, either due to: (a) IT policies of the organisation which delete older emails; or (b) due to a change in employees. Now that the concerned RO of the RBI will update the status on the FIRM’s portal (along with the standard email process), the amount will be reconciled and the LSF can be viewed on the portal.

Disclaimer: This blog post is co-written by Tanuvi Thakur of iSPIRT and Sanjay Khan of Khaitan & Co and is meant to inform about a new announcement by the regulator. It should not be considered as advice.

Posted on

Stay-In-India Checklist Index aiming for 5 trillion $ Economy by 2025

What is Stay-in-India Checklist?

The Stay-in-India checklist is a list of regulatory hurdles that makes it attractive for Indian startups to Domicile in foreign jurisdictions like Singapore and USA.

The checklist was prepared by iSPIRT to present the most important issues where respective Government departments or regulators could being in reform to help stop this exodus of start-ups from India.

The checklist is important to achieve the vision and mission objectives of National Policy on Software Products. In turn, it will boost the innovation-driven economy, Ease of Doing Business (EOB) in India, retain and multiply the economic value thereby contributing to the 5 trillion dollar economy goals by 2025.

The issues pertaining to various regulations on making funding of start-ups complex and unattractive, difficult or redundant compliance, ambiguity or unclear notifications etc.

iSPIRT has taken up a  list of 36 issues since 2015/16. Until now out of 36 issues, some have been addressed. Some issues were resolved fully, some partially and about 17 or more issues from the original list are still unresolved.

Note: This blog is a progressive blog to maintain the evolution of the Stay-in-India Checklist and its progression as the issues get resolved by the Govt. of India.

Index of issues solved and remaining

The objective of this blog post is to provide readers in the Start-up community to keep track of issues in this checklist.

We covered many of the resolved issues on www.pn.ispirt.in  and www.policyhacks.in . Ready links given below.

  1. https://pn.ispirt.in/ispirts-stay-in-india-checklist-gains-further-traction-rbi-and-mca-follow-the-startup-india-action-plan/ 
  2. https://pn.ispirt.in/stay-in-india-checklist-successes-so-far-and-the-path-forward/ 
  3. https://pn.ispirt.in/list-of-startup-issues-resolved-stay-in-india-checklist/ 
  4. https://pn.ispirt.in/rbi-allows-convertible-notes-for-startups-from-foreign-sources/ 
  5. https://pn.ispirt.in/external-commercial-borrowing-norms-for-startup-ecb/ 
  6. https://pn.ispirt.in/notice-on-angel-tax/ 

A list of issues pending to be solved is are given below.

1.  Digital Goods and Services Confusion

Authority: MoF and MOC

Status/Explanation:

The digital economy is about “Digital Goods” and “Digital Services”. Even the physical goods are traded through “Digital services” platforms and means. Hence, it is important to get “Digital goods” defined in our legal systems as distinct from “Digital Services”.

National Policy on Software Products (NPSP) was announced in February 2019 promoting Software products with a vision to make India a Software product nation.

Software products possess all properties of “Goods” except that they are intangible. Recognition of Software products as distinct from Software services is paramount to the success of the NPSP and promotion of the Software product industry. In larger shape, this requires a clear treatment and definition of Digital (intangible) “Goods” and “Services”.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

The National Policy on Software Product (NPSP) was announced in Feb 2019 to promote the Software products. The Policy implementation has huge friction owing to the non-acceptance of Software products as separate from Services. To leverage NPSP for the success of the Software product Industry “instituting” this clarity is important.

2. Abrogate Softex forms for SW products

Authority: MoF and MOC

Status/Explanation:

Softex form is required to be filed for export of software. After the GSTN system came into existence, all exporters filed Export invoices and regular exporters filed a letter (LUT) with the Government of India. The GSTN system can be used to track remittances received against each invoice.

Software products are traded based on MRP/list price mechanism in both On-premises and SaaS models and hence does not require any valuation.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Softex forms is a Redundant process to ascertain Foreign remittances arrivals after the GSTN system is in place. RBI systems should digitally connect EDPMS to GSTN for a homogenous tracking of export proceeds remittances just like Income tax and other systems have done it. This will give way to a homogeneous system across all goods and services.

At the least Softex forms for Software products can be abrogated to ease the business of Software product companies where there is no need of valuation and those listed on the Indian Software Product Registry (ISPR) maintained by MeitY.

3.  Remove TDS on sale of Software products

Authority: MoF

Status/Explanation:

A business can buy a hardware product without a TDS but not a Software, as the purchase of a Software product from Software companies are subject to TDS at 10% of all receipts under Section 194J.

The refund of this amount only happens after filing their IT Returns in September of each year, with this delay causing hardship in terms of working capital.

In the case of SMEs and Start-ups, it is hard to receive working capital loans from banks or NBFCs. For SaaS business the transactions are online and it is not possible to map TAN numbers at the time of online transactions and tracking of TDS on all transactions.

Since all profitable businesses with more than 40 lakh turnover are filing GSTN invoices, the tracking can easily be done through the GSTN system of each invoice amount and mapped to the income tax return filed at year-end.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

No product is subject to TDS when sold by producer to channel partners or end consumer. Software Products are subject to this sale. CBDT mixes this TDS with other TDS issues hence is reluctant to remove it. Income from Software products should not be classified as Royalty income and “Software Products” should be treated as “Goods” as defined in constitutions. This again requires recognition of “software products” and a Solution to this problem.

4.   Setup HSN Code for Software Products

Authority: MoF

Status/Explanation:

Software products are intangible goods and keeping and treating them with Services in SAC list will not be able to help in creating a “Software product Industry”. They have to be classified as “products”.

Presently Software is classified in HSN code based on the medium on which it is physically supplied. The intangible Software is not defined in HSN and for domestic purposes, the Software product companies use Service Accounting Code Services Accounting Code (SAC) list which is not internationally harmonized. Hence, the trade of Software products can’t be homogeneously measured.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

HSN code mechanism is only used for Physical goods. However, in order to promote “Software products,” some countries are giving treatment to “Software products” and “Digital goods” under chapter 98, 99. India should also create a provision for “software products” HSN code until a harmonious global system is developed for “Digital goods” (including Software Products).

5.  Level playing in B2C Sales of SW products

Authority: MoF

Status/Explanation:

Although there are mechanisms laid to report sales in India for foreign companies (non-resident taxable person), yet a lot of business of Software products especially in apps business happen in B2C area from not so popular brands. As a result, the Indian “Software product” companies have a non-level playing field as they have to comply with the GST regime of 18%.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Provisions should be made to relieve the B2C sales of Indian “Software products” from heavy 18% GST for the advancement of “Digital India” and especially new post-pandemic digital and Gig worker economy.

6. Favourable Tax Regime for IPR

Authority: MoF

Status/Explanation:

In the past several years, India has experienced increased capabilities of innovative, creative and capable young professionals for creation of significant and valuable IPR. At the same time, India has also seen that the ownership of such IPR usually does not reside with Indian companies or in India.

Whilst there are several ‘non-tax’ reasons for this loss of ownership in favour of other jurisdictions, tax remains one of the major reasons. As a result of the huge negative tax impact, Indian companies constantly look to hold their IPRs for worldwide use in a jurisdiction which is more favorable from a tax perspective. Some of such notable jurisdictions are: Ireland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and Singapore.

Further, governments of certain jurisdictions are aggressively targeting Indian companies to house their IPR there. For instance, a majority of Indian software product companies prefer to set up base in Singapore given the incentives offered by the Singapore government and the aggressive marketing by the Singapore government.

It is noteworthy that in the case of technology companies, IPR is one of the most (if not the most) important assets. Accordingly, technology companies usually follow their IPRs and establish base in jurisdictions that are most favourable for IPR. Lacking this, India has seen most of its technology companies shifting base to jurisdictions such as Singapore.

Creating a favourable tax regime for intellectual property is, therefore, extremely important for retaining technology companies in India.

This is partially covered in the Budget announcement, which provides that income by way of royalty in respect of a patent developed and registered in India will be taxed at 10%.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Further action also needs to be permitted-

  • Such companies should not be subject to minimum alternate tax. However, such companies should be subject to dividend distribution tax as may be applicable to all other companies;
  • Transfer of IPR so developed and owned, or acquired and owned should result only in capital gains and be taxable as capital gains. Such IPR should be characterised as a long term asset if held for more than 3 years as is the case for other assets;
  • For self-generated IPR, the holding period should start from the date an application is made under the IPR laws for its exclusive ownership, viz, copyright, trademark or patent registration.

7.  Informal Guidance Mechanism & appellate authority at RBI

Authority: RBI

Status/Explanation:

This needs to be pursued. The RBI helpline announced recently does not resolve this issue, as it does not contemplate making RBI approvals/rejections public or appeal process for parties aggrieved by an RBI decision.

While public notification of RBI decisions has been announced for compounding orders, it is yet to be done for cases of approvals/rejections of applications under FEMA (on a no-names basis).

Recommendation/Suggestion:

In our discussion with authorities, it was suggested that instead of codifying laws on aspects like round tripping, it is better to have an informal guidance and appeal procedure at RBI, similar to SEBI. This needs to be pursued.

8. Filing of Form FC-TRS – post-transfer requirement

Authority: RBI

Status/Explanation:

In terms of the FDI policy, a transfer of shares of an Indian company between non-residents and residents can be taken on record by the company subject to it receiving endorsed form FC-TRS. While the filing of this form has been made online, it still takes a few days’ time for the AD banks to review and approve the form.

Thus, the transfer of shares cannot be recorded by the company (despite the purchaser remitting monies to the seller and completing all other formalities) until form FC-TRS is endorsed/approved by the AD bank. At times, this process takes months (there are substantial delays even after the filing process has been made online).

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Since FC-TRS filing is online now, there should not be an issue in making it a post-transfer requirement.

9. Collection of monies by a resident on behalf of a non-resident to be permitted

Authority: RBI

Status/Explanation:

The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) prohibits any person to make any payment to or for the credit of any person resident outside India in any manner. As the nature of commerce has undergone major change and many services and goods are being delivered through aggregators using online or mobile media, there is a need to re-look at this provision. Essentially, in all aggregator arrangements, the aggregator acts ‘on behalf of’ the seller to collect payments and provide selling and/or ancillary services.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Presently, only start-ups have been permitted to collect monies in India on behalf of their foreign subsidiaries. This needs to be permitted for all companies, and also on behalf of any other entity (regardless of such entity being a subsidiary).

10. Acquisition by residents of overseas companies with an existing subsidiary(ies) in India to be permitted

Authority: RBI

Status/Explanation:

Presently, there is uncertainty on the meaning of “round-tripping” in relation to such transactions.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

“Round tripping” is usually invoked when an Indian company acquires a foreign company, with an existing subsidiary in India.

It needs to be clarified whether the transfer of shares between an overseas subsidiary of an Indian company and a third party falls under any compliance/approval process under FEMA.

Also, there is a limitation on foreign investment by resident individuals in association with the ‘Indian Party’ in only operating entities. This may be done away with.

The RBI policy announcements contain only the following generic statement: “Streamlining of overseas investment operations for the start-up enterprises”. The aforesaid specific actions need to be performed.

11. ODI JVs/WOS investing back into India to be permitted where it is a genuine business requirement and bona-fide investment

Authority: RBI

Status/Explanation:

There is uncertainty with regard to “round-tripping” in such transactions.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Such investments should be permitted (under the approval route, if need be) on commercial justification.

The following transaction may be specifically permitted:

  •  Bona-fide acquisition of existing structures having a leg in India; or
  •  Where the Indian investment is made for bonafide commercial reasons out of funds earned/raised overseas without Indian guarantee and is in 100% FDI automatic route sector (e.g. infrastructure).

Further, setting up an overseas structure under the ODI route to raise equity capital for investing back into India should be specified/clarified to be a bonafide and permitted overseas investment.

Since there is no bar under the extant regulations, entities which have overseas JVs / WOS which have downstream investments in India should not be subject to punitive action.

Individuals should be allowed to hold shares in foreign entities with step-down subsidiaries, subject to the investment in the foreign entity being a specific fraction (and not the whole of) of foreign funding received by step-down subsidiaries.

To permit Investments up to a specified limit (eg USD 10 million) by companies (regardless of their net worth) in overseas entities.

Again, the RBI policy announcements contain only the following generic statement: “Streamlining of overseas investment operations for the start-up enterprises”. The aforesaid specific actions need to be performed.

12. Late filing to be allowed for subsidiary formations by start-up founders

Authority: RBI

Status/Explanation:

Currently, this is not permissible.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Lot of founders who set-up subsidiaries abroad and have not compiled with RBI, should be allowed an automatic route through late fees.

13. Restriction on FVCIs to invest in all sectors to be removed and brought in line with FDI policy

Authority: RBI

Status/Explanation:

Presently, FVCIs are permitted to invest in only certain sectors.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

In terms of RBI/2016-17/89/ A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 7 of 20 October 2016, FVCIs are permitted to invest only on ten sectors (viz., Biotechnology, IT related to hardware and software development, Nanotechnology, Seed research and development, Research and development of new chemical entities in pharmaceutical sector, Dairy industry, Poultry industry, Production of biofuels, Hotel-cum-convention centres with seating capacity of more than three thousand, and Infrastructure sector).

While RBI (under the above circular) has exempted start-ups from this restriction, other companies also need to be exempted from this.

14. Limit on acceptance of deposits from shareholders to be removed for private companies

Authority: MCA

Status/Explanation:

Under Section 73 of the Companies Act, private companies are allowed to accept deposits from their shareholders up to 100% of their share capital and free reserves. However, since most start-ups require constant funding during initial years, and do not have free reserves, such limits may be removed for them.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

The Companies Law Committee Report recommends removal of this limit for all start-ups. However, fine print is awaited.

15. Grant of ESOPs to promoters and independent directors for all private companies

Authority: MCA

Status/Explanation:

The provisions of the Companies Act do not permit companies to grant ESOPs to promoters or members of the promoter group or independent directors. There is no rationale for this restriction as the promoters essentially function as employees of the company. Further, through multiple rounds of fundraising, the stake held by the Promoters would have significantly diluted. Also, to get good professionals to join as independent directors, it is important to issue them ESOPs as payment in cash for compensating them is a burden on the company’s resources.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Provisions of the Companies Act need to be amended to permit issuing of ESOPs to promoters and members of the promoter group and independent directors. Management ESOP should be permitted for unlisted companies to keep the Promoters incentivized and motivated. Likewise, the role of advisors is critical for the success of the ventures. Equity seems to be the only logical form of incentive, given the lack of liquidity.

While the MCA has permitted the issuance of ESOPs to promoters for start-ups, this needs to be permitted for other companies as well. Also, the issuance of ESOPs to independent directors needs to be permitted as well.

16. Taxation of gains from sale of ESOPs as salary or prerequisite (leading to very high tax at present)

Authority: MCA

Status/Explanation:

The ESOP regime in India is geared more towards listed entities, which have a liquid market, as opposed to start-ups. Section 17, IT Act 1961 and Rule 3, IT Rules 1962 deal with the taxation of ESOPs. First, the employee is subject to tax at the time of exercise of option – i.e. this tax is payable immediately even if the employee has not sold the share in that tax period. The magnitude of the tax is calculated on the notional gain between the acquisition price of the share (option strike price) and the fair market value (FMV) at the time of exercise. Secondly, the nature of such gains is considered as salary or perquisite. This means that the employee may be payable for ordinary income tax – 30% (excluding surcharge and education cess), calculated as per the marginal income tax rate) for the notional gains calculated above. This causes an economic outflow in the hands of the employee upon exercise, which is funded by debt or is at times even declined due to this reason. This is especially acute since the shares they hold don’t have the same rights as those offered to Investors.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Amend Rule 3(8)(iii) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and as follows (insertion in bold) “In a case where, on the date of exercising of the option, the share in the company is not listed on a recognised stock exchange, the fair market value shall be such value of the share in the company as determined by a merchant banker or accountant on the specified date as per Rule 11UA(1)(c)(b), provided such fair market value shall not be less than the exercise price ”

OR

Tax incidence should arise in the year of the sale of shares (not the year of exercise of the option). Profit made on sale of shares should be treated as capital gains (vs. the treatment as a portion of the gains as salary or perquisite).

17. Dividends from overseas subsidiaries taxed again in India

Authority: MoF

Status/Explanation:

Dividend received from overseas subsidiaries is taxed once again in India as income in the hands of the company. Also, while the rate of tax on such dividends for certain companies is 15% (as against 30%), the same exemption is not provided to limited-liability partnerships and individuals.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Thus, tax levied on dividends from overseas subsidiaries should be discontinued, for parent companies incorporated by resident Indians in India.

18. Fair market value tax

Authority: MoF

Status/Explanation:

Any investment above the ‘fair market value’ (as may be determined by the Income Tax Authority at a future date) is treated as income for the company and is subject to income tax. This impacts angel investments at high valuation, as there is a risk of the Income Tax Authority determining such investment as above fair market value and requiring the company to pay tax on the differential.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Start-ups have been exempted from this tax. However, the certification process to be recognized as a start-up is cumbersome and needs to be relaxed.

19. Harmonisation of tax policy for listed and unlisted equity instruments

Authority: MoF

Status/Explanation:

Listed Securities have a holding Period of 12 months for LTCG whereas for Unlisted it is 24 months Unlisted securities have a tax rate that is twice the rate of their listed counterparts, and the surcharge applies on the sale of unlisted securities while it is exempt for listed securities.

Recommendation/Suggestion:

Globally, the differentiation in tax treatment on listed and unlisted securities is not prevalent. Unlisted securities are more illiquid and riskier as compared to listed securities. They should have the same tenure of holding and the same tax rate on the same. There is a disparity in the tax rates applicable for capital gains on the sale of listed securities (12 months) vis-à-vis sale of unlisted securities (24 months). Dematted Unlisted securities of start-ups or companies that were registered as start-ups can also be subject to STT (or the new Stamp Duty regime announced in February 2019) in order to harmonise the tax treatment of both listed and unlisted securities.

Disclaimer: The discussion and ideas expressed here should not be construed as legal advice. The discussion is conducted with Industry practitioners and experts for purpose of benefiting the Industry members in the Software product, Start-up ecosystem and other related  industry sectors

Posted on

External Commercial Borrowing norms for Startup (ECB)

What is ECB?

External commercial borrowings(ECB) imply borrowing (debt) from a foreign (non-resident) lender. ECB is an attractive financing route as it generally offers access to finance with low rate of interest available from overseas low interest markets.

ECBs have been in use by many corporations, PSUS and especially by MNCs setting up operations in India. Who can raise an ECB, from where and under what conditions, rate, maturity period etc. are all governed by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) in India.  Startups till now did not have access to the ECB route of funding.

RBI announcement on ECB for Startups

Announcement was made by the Reserve Bank in the Fourth Bi-monthly Monetary Policy Statement for the year 2016-17 released on October 04, 2016, for permitting Startup enterprises to access loans under ECB framework.

Sanjay Khan Nagra, iSPIRT volunteer talks about this announcement in the video embedded. Below.

As such RBI circular is self-explanatory attached here. However, for ready reference, some salient features of the RBI announcement are covered in the text given below.

What are the key announcements?

What is a Startups as per circular?

The above circular covers Startups as defined by the Official Gazette of Government of India dated February 18, 2016 (i.e. Startup Policy of DIPP) given here.

How much can a startup borrow and in what currency?

A startup can borrow up to US$ 3 million or equivalent per financial year either in Indian rupee or any convertible foreign currency or a combination of both. In case of borrowing in INR, the non-resident lender, should mobilise INR through swaps/outright sale undertaken through an AD Category-I bank in India.

What is minimum maturity period?

Minimum average maturity period will be 3 years.

For what end-use can startups use ECB?

Usually there are end-use direction for an ECB. However, for startups under the above said circular of RBI, ECB can be used for any expenditure in connection with the business of the Startup.

What is all-in-cost of ECB?

There are no limits. The RBI circular says, this shall be mutually agreed between the borrower and the lender

In what forms can one receive the lending?

It can be in the form of loans or non-convertible, optionally convertible or partially convertible preference shares and the minimum average maturity period will be 3 years.

Can this be converted in to equity?

Yes, conversion into equity is freely permitted, subject to Regulations applicable for foreign investment in Startups.

Who can lend?

Previously, ECB regime inter alia set out various conditions for Indian companies raising loan from external borrowings including conditions relating to (i) eligible borrowers (ii) eligible lenders (iii) permitted end uses etc.

After this circular, the lender / investor shall be a resident of a country who is either a member of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) or a member of a FATF-Style Regional Bodies; and shall not be from a country identified in the public statement of the FATF. (Please see RBI Circular for detail)

However, overseas branches and subsidiaries of Indian banks and overseas wholly-owned subsidiary or joint venture of an Indian company will not be considered as recognized lenders.

What are security norms?

Foreign lenders or Investors are allowed to request security for any collateral in the nature of movable, immovable, intangible assets (including patents, IP rights etc.) but shall comply with foreign direct investment norms applicable for foreign lenders holding such securities.

Issuance of corporate or personal guarantee is allowed. Guarantee issued by non-resident(s) is allowed only if such parties qualify as lender under paragraph 2(c) above. Exclusion: Issuance of guarantee, standby letter of credit, letter of undertaking or letter of comfort by Indian banks, all India Financial Institutions and NBFCs is not permitted.

For more details you are requested to refer the RBI circular here.

 

Posted on

RBI relaxes FVCI norms

RBI relaxes Foreign Venture Capital Investor (FVCI) norms for Startup investment

One more announcement to the stay-in-India check list has come from RBI with respect to registered under SEBI (FVCI) Regulations, 2000.

RBI has announced amendments to the Foreign Exchange Management (Transfer or Issue of Security by a Person Resident Outside India) Regulations, 2000, notified vide Notification No. FEMA 20/2000-RB dated May 3, 2000, as amended from time to time (Principal Regulations).

Sanjay Khan Nagra, iSPIRT volunteer talks about this announcement in the video embedded. Below. Also the main provisions and text is described in this blog below. Those interested in the original regulation may visit this page here.

As per the amendment notification referred to above, any FVCI which has obtained registration under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (FVCI) Regulations, 2000, will not require any approval from Reserve Bank of India and can invest in:

1. Equity or equity linked instrument or debt instrument issued by an Indian company whose shares are not listed on a recognised stock exchange at the time of issue of the said securities/instruments and engaged in any of the following sectors:

(i) Biotechnology

(ii) IT related to hardware and software development

(iii) Nanotechnology

(iv) Seed research and development

(v) Research and development of new chemical entities in pharmaceutical sector

(vi) Dairy industry

(vii) Poultry industry

(viii) Production of bio-fuels

(ix) Hotel-cum-convention centres with seating capacity of more than three thousand

(x) Infrastructure sector (This will include activities included within the scope of the definition of infrastructure under the External Commercial Borrowing guidelines / policies notified under the extant FEMA Regulations as amended from time to time).

2. Equity or equity linked instrument or debt instrument issued by an Indian ‘startup’ irrespective of the sector in which the startup is engaged. A startup will mean an entity (private limited company or a registered partnership firm or a limited liability partnership) incorporated or registered in India not prior to five years, with an annual turnover not exceeding INR 25 Crores in any preceding financial year, working towards innovation, development, deployment or commercialization of new products, processes or services driven by technology or intellectual property and satisfying certain conditions given in the Regulations.

3. Units of a Venture Capital Fund (VCF) or of a Category I Alternative Investment Fund (Cat-I AIF) (registered under the SEBI (AIF) Regulations, 2012) or units of a Scheme or of a fund set up by a VCF or by a Cat-I AIF.

iSPIRT believes these announcements have made Govt. Recognize the importance of opening up investment to promote innovative startups. Right now these announcements are limited to Startups recognized by DIPP. However, we hope in future they may be opened for all startups and an easy investment regime in Indian from foreign funding source.

Posted on

The payment gateway friction in cross-border trade of Software products

The payment gateway problem in exporting online from India

It is not easy for Indian Software product companies to export products online and receive payments in India.  This is true for both the downloadable Software product or Software as a Service (SaaS).

Experts say there is no legal or policy hurdle from RBI. Yet, there is friction. An Indian payment gateway service provider denies foreign currency cross-border transactions from India to a startups or small company.  Only exceptions could be some large companies.

the-payment-gateway-friction-in-cross-border-trade-of-software-products

As part of ‘PolicyHacks’ at iSPIRT, we attempted to attend to the issue of recurring billing in a previous blog here. This blog is another continued effort in this direction. It is based on a discussion with experts from payment solution companies. Embedded below is a video discussion with Krish Subramanian, Cofounder of Chargebee and Kiran Jain of Razorpay.

The options available and adopted by most small Software product companies’ today are:

  1. Use a foreign payment gateway like PayPal, 2 Checkout, Skrill etc. Or
  2. Setup a branch office or a subsidiary in a foreign country
  3. Incorporate in a foreign country and sell globally from there including India

The option #1 above of using international payment providers comes with a heavy transaction cost. The services are not of same order as one can avail being in US or Europe.

So, option #2 and #3 becomes much attractive. This leads to exodus of Indian Software product company’s to USA, Singapore or Europe etc. India stands to lose in the game.

Krish mentions that, “the Indian companies are forced to move abroad to seek the frictionless experience in the payment part, where they allow month on month and do seamless upgrades and downgrades”. He further adds up, “Indian companies being in India do not get the level playing field, even when the strengths of product are very similar to a foreign product. Even using a solution like 2Checkout being in India does not provide seamless upgrade and downgrade. Hence, many companies go and incorporate outside”.

This problem, therefore, is one of the ‘biggest hurdle’ to the ‘stay-in-India’ concept for startups. It is vital that policy makers pay attention and remove friction to this problem for startups to believe in ‘India Story’.

Kiran Jain of Razorpay mentioned that the added attraction for Indian Software product company to move abroad is that, “an Indian company selling on international payment gateway from outside India does not have to comply with service tax”.

This is another level playing field problem. Being in India the Software product sales online is subject to service tax. On other hand being a foreign incorporated company and selling a B2C product the service tax is totally exempted. This is so in current policy framework and is going to stay same in the proposed GST framework.

Although, this is not directly related to the payment gateway problem, it does add-up to the exodus of Startups problem. This issue has been covered in an earlier blog here. It is a policy agenda item on list of taxation issues (of iSPIRT) to be addressed by Government of India and also an item on Stay-in-India checklist.

The cross-border online trade of Software product is directly a Payment Gateway issue. Let us further understand what are the underlying causes, policy issues, possible resolutions and suggestions.

Is there a regulatory hurdle? If not, then what is the cause of problem?

Kiran says, “RBI came up with OPGSP guidelines in 2014”. And, “this policy allows the operation of International payment gateways”, that can facilitate both the foreign currency cross-border transactions and recurring billing. According to Kiran, many Indian banks have capability to provide platform which can accept international cards and multi-currency systems. Few banks support up to 17 different foreign currencies, though the settlement is all done in US dollars.

Why are banks not giving it? Kiran said that in last one year in USA, out of $28.33 trillion online transactions, $16.33 billion were classified as frauds. Indian banking system does not have a capability to incur such losses, “that is the threat to Indian banks”. This threat is the result of ‘returns’ or ‘charge-back’.

In case of delivery of downloadable Software product, at least there is a trail of transaction that can establish that the Software was really downloaded and if unsuccessful the Software can be delivered again. However, in case of services it may be difficult to handle the consumption trail at least in B2C transactions. In B2B transactions, such problems normally do not arise.

Hence, handling the risk of returns and charge-backs is the problem to solved. Solving this will encourage India banking systems to offer free and fair cross-border international payment gateway services.

What is the solution to problem?

Large players by virtue of volume or by offering a risk covering instruments can easily avail the service from banks themselves.

Small and Medium players can use payment aggregators. PayPal and 2Checkout are nothing but aggregators. Thy have infrastructure built in USA. In India they provide services under OPGSP guidelines. Their relationships with issuing banks in USA enables them to provide services in India.

Kiran says, “as on date we have many aggregators in India”. But, “we have not seen any Indian aggregator moving to US and partnering with banks like Wells Fargo or Worldpay”, who could build “an infrastructure trail in US and bring it to India and start providing cross-border payments”.

This will be a powerful option according to Kiran. This option can be used to ease out cross-border multi-currency payment system aggregation. This will give exporters alternative to PayPal and 2Checkout etc.. This will also reduce transaction costs by at least 30%. Now, an Indian merchant pays 4 to 6% plus the currency conversion costs as a compared to the 2.9% + 30 cents per transaction in USA.

The other advantage of Indian aggregator with US infrastructure will be the better understanding of the Indian merchants and the risks involved. Hence, better placed to manage the risks. “Today PayPal looks at every merchant as risky merchant”, says Kiran. The Indian players can have option of either aggregating the merchants on PayPal model. Or offer facility directly to mid and large players.  In later case the entire risk engine is managed by the aggregator. The risk engine will take care of detecting the fraud cards, stolen cards, charge-backs cards as these will not be the capability of a merchant.

In the aggregator model, it is possible to play on volumes by on boarding a large number of small and mid-size merchants. This way an aggregator can easily go to a bank and say my charge-back to sales ratio is just about 1.76%.

Kiran further adds that as an alternative risk mitigation mechanism an Industry body could register small and mid-size Software product companies (merchants) and provide some kind of a certified credit rating. This could help banks and aggregators to assess the risk associated with the individual merchant.

Krish feels, a Govt. body like MSME could build a registration system of merchants with past history, people involved etc. (this could be like extending the Performance and Credit rating scheme of MSME). “This could act as a KYC”, says Krish for the aggregator, payment gateways and banks.

Are there Indian Aggregators offering such services?

As mentioned above, banks offer services in a limited way to large merchants. Aggregators like RazorPay also provide services but again with conditions attached.

Kiran says,“Razorpay provides the services on selective basis. We do not offer the option of card details to be held by merchants”. He further informed that merchant account with many charge-backs are suspended and that cases with one-off charge types may be allowed.

So, there is conditional availability of Indian service providers of cross-border online payment gateways.

Concluding remarks and iSPIRT views

“It is a crying shame if many startups still incorporate outside India just to get a level playing field”, says Krish Subramanian. He also listed following observations:

  • there is an option that is emerging (in terms of aggregators);
  • there are no regulatory hurdles per say;
  • it is more about risk mitigation;
  • the risk mitigation is about creating awareness by closely working with banks;
  • it is also about creating awareness amongst merchants themselves to be able to understand reasons why banks act in certain way and about clarity on pricing, return and refund policy etc.
  • creating overall awareness in eco-system

iSPIRT views on the overall situation on the given problem and present policy status are as follows:

  1. For India to be a Software product nation, Indian resident companies should be able to carry out cross-border trade and receive foreign currency payments onlineseamlessly without opting for incorporating a subsidiary outside India
  2. For a healthy Software product ecosystem, it is vital that Software product companies have access to several options of payment gateway service providers with differing service offerings
  3. RBI alone cannot solve this problem.RBI policy of OPGSP allows the payment gateway players to provide services in India. The inherent risk does not encourage service providers to offer cross-border payment services. RBI may have to become more reformative in encouraging Indian international payment gateway providers.
  4. Government of India needs to intervene and devise an integrative policy that:
  5. promotes an ecosystem of Indian cross-border payment providers
  6. build a mechanism that helps banks and OPGSPs to mitigate their risk without hurting consumer interest
  7. support Software product companies in their cross-border trade by a proactive policy

MeitY can incorporate enabling policy measures in National Software product policy and offer an Indian Software product company registry that has an inbuilt mechanism to ascertain and certify a Software product company’s credibility. Also financial instrument like an Industry corpus fund could provide a common bank guarantee, that can be backup with surety bonds from individual product companies for a defined threshold.

In a digital world order, cross-border trade is going to be highly dependent on easy availability of international payment solutions. Indian merchants able to scale their international trade with ease is vital for India to be retain leadership in Software trade.

 

Posted on

Recurring Billing for SaaS. Is it available in India?

Recurring Billing  – demystified for SaaS companies

Abstract

For any SaaS Startup with India market focus, the biggest bottleneck today is recurring billing. It is not available as an open, over the counter service from payment gateways. Most startups have to work around to solve this problem. The workaround may be using an expensive international payment gateway or it may be incorporating a subsidiary in foreign geography. Many startups also move all out of India, if they can afford to do so. In the process India loses some good SaaS companies.

Reading into details, recurring billing is not banned by RBI in India. But, banks and payments gateways do not have the offering available over the counter. Complying with two factor authentication (2FA) and the associated risk of chargebacks are the reasons behind. The payment industry experts say, banks offer it but needs to cover their risk for chargeback scenarios. So, one has to negotiate with banks and therefore large players are able to avail these services.

To bridge the gap startups like Razorpay are building the aggregator payment platform that that can work between the SaaS startups and the Banks to offer recurring billing.

Since, it is not smooth enough, recurring billing is an area, which requires policy maker’s attention. To realize the full potential of a single unified market under GST,  the ‘Digital India’ requires a more open, clearly defined and an enabling policy and procedure on digital payments, at par with developed countries.

This article is based on a deep dive into the problem of recurring billing, with experts from payment solution companies Krish Subramanian, Co-founder, Chargebee (Subscription Billing & Recurring Payments Software) and Kiran Jain of Razorpay (a payment gateway aggregator).

Embedded below is a hangout video with these two experts. You may like to watch the video and/or read the blog piece below (which is built on the conversation in the video).

Some terms used in online payment industry

Recurring billing

It is a subscription driven model of charging or collecting payment from customer. Both the frequency interval of charging and amount charged are fixed to qualify for recurring billing. Software as a Service (SaaS) companies are the biggest users of this service.

Merchant: A person or business who want to sell goods or services.

Acquiring Bank: It is the Merchant’s Bank

Card holder: The buyer who owns and uses a credit/debit/prepaid card etc. to buy goods and services

Issuing Bank: It is the Cardholder’s Bank. An issuing bank issues credit cards to consumers.

SaaS industry and status of recurring billing?

SaaS startups offer products or productized services in a subscription model that runs in a per user/seat at a fixed frequency say per month. In SaaS industry, the recurring billing is often at a low cost transactions e.g. $10 to $50 per user per month.

In developed countries like USA online payment gateways and payment aggregator offer these services. A startup in India can sign for the service from these international payment gateways (like 2Checkout and PayPal) sitting in India. This  can be done with minimum paperwork and absolutely no hassles. But, the cost is almost double the cost of payment gateway services in India. The down sides are payments may not be real time. Also, currency conversion cost twice. Once, when the Indian customer pay in foreign exchange and again when the international payment gateway pays to the Indian merchant.

Problem is the Indian payment gateways do not provide the recurring billing option as seamlessly as foreign payment gateways. Hence, the need to go to foreign gateway, when an Indian SaaS company wants to sell to Indian customers.

Krish of Chargebee adds, “for SaaS companies a non-negotiable aspect to provide frictionless experience to customers is the ability to collect payments on month on month basis”. (please see the video)

Statutory position of recurring billing in India

If one reads through the RBI’s circulars on two factor authentication (2FA), there is no mention of recurring billing. The RBI’s communication vide RBI/2011-12/145 DPSS.PD.CO. No.223/02.14.003 / 2011-2012 August 04, 2011 covering card not present (CNP) transactions which includes online transactions as also the IVR transactions states following two conditions:

Based on the feedback from the stakeholders and keeping in view the interest of card holders the following directions are issued:

(i) It is mandatory to put in place additional factor of authentication for all CNP transactions indicated in para 4 of our directions dated December 31, 2010 with effect from May 01, 2012.

(ii) In case of customer complaint regarding issues, if any, arising out of transactions effected without the additional factor of authentication after the stipulated date, the issuer bank shall reimburse the loss to the customer further without demur.

For an avid policy interpreter this means 2FA is the requirement for every transaction. It is not a straight forward clear position.

Kiran Jain of Razorpay, reads in to the sentence of same communication, where it says, “The matter was discussed in a meeting of banks with the Reserve Bank of India on June 22, 2011 wherein it was emphasized by the Reserve Bank that while it was not advocating any specific solution in this regard,”. Kiran says, “From RBI perspective there is no restriction in India”. According to him recurring billing is allowed under RBI guidelines provided in first transaction 2FA is followed and there is no restriction even by banks. (please see the video)

If recurring billing is allowed why is it not available openly?

Banks have a risk in complying with the mandatory charge back, in case when customer files a complaint. The issuing banks are supposed to refund to customer in case complaint from the customer. Normally the risk is never transferred to the acquiring bank.

Kiran in the conversation talks about the lack of understanding on risk involved, by merchants in India. Banks needs to cover their risk through transaction fee. Merchants in India don’t want to pay high transaction fees, that can cover the risk involved in charge backs.

Banks are not willing to underwrite the risk for small players. This is why there are no readymade recurring solutions available in Indian online payments.

How can this risk problem be solved?

Kiran says, “the alternative is to create a partner in between the banks and the ecosystem of SaaS companies, who is willing to underwrite the risks”.  Razorpay is one such player, who is attempting to solve this problem.

Why can’t a Startup go to Bank directly? What is the way out?

The problem in recurring billing is not only the payment gateway but also the management of the subscriptions. Baking systems are all legacy systems. They are not able to handle the dynamic situations. For example, if a customer lost the card, the new card information should be updated in time. Such gaps are filled by the layer created by third party Payment Gateway solutions.

Also, this further requires some subscription management systems in an online system. Krish calls this “billing intelligence”. This can either be provided by ready made solutions like Chargebee or can also be built in-house.

Startups can solve this puzzle by availing solutions offered by companies like Razorpay and Chargebee. Razorpay reduces the complexities of recurring billing on banking side. Similarly, Companies like Chargebee reduce the complexity of “billing or invoicing intelligence”.

What more can be done on Policy side?

Krish feels, if we engage with banks and banks can build a system that can underwrite risk for small players and also make Bank realize how service providers can help mitigate risk, there can be a chain built to see a successful recurring billing system in India, easily available to SaaS startups.

Kiran’s view is, from policy perspective not much can be done as RBI does not mandate anything specific. It has do’s and don’t type of framework. His view is charge backs are like non-performing assets (NPAs). So, large merchants in India will still get recurring billing solutions from many payment gateway solutions easily and will also have in-house capability to build billing and invoicing platforms.

Looking further (iSPIRT’s Views)

If one researches hard there is possibility to find payment gateways offering recurring billing solutions in India. However, there are lots of questions asked and it is certainly not available as an across the counter service and definitely not to everyone.

Aggregator service like Razorpay have a chance to fill this gap and they will offer valuable service much needed by Startups. A combination of solution like Raozorpay + Chargebee could solve the problem for many startups.

RBI has not banned the recurring billing. On other hand it has also not put the record straight. Going further, there is a need that RBI and Government of India recognize the importance of recurring billing in a digital economy. Once the need is recognized, a layer of reform in policy framework by RBI should be added. Clear regulation that covers all stakeholders as well as encourages banks to offer recurring billing solutions, is needed. A digitally signed online agreement that is backed up by a 2F authentication in first transaction should be enough to cover the paper formalities required for a fixed amount, fixed tenure (frequency of payment) transactions. The buyer of service can revoke the online service agreement online any time. Customer’s risk is therefore limited up to the time he opts out of the service agreement.

RBI will not take actions that promote an Industry. It is Government of India, who should create an enabling policy for SaaS companies. Ministry of Electronics and IT (MEIT) can carve out a scheme that can mitigate risk of Bank, in turn helping SaaS industry. Such things should happen under the National policy on Software product being considered by MEIT.

The bottom line is that the Indian businesses must have access to multiple choices of service providers for availing recurring billing services at a low cost per transaction with a well laid out fraud protection and complaint redressal mechanism.

Both GOI and RBI needs to work together in direction of removing the bottlenecks. India is unveiling a unified digital market with GST coming in. Without seamless digital payments not only we will fall short in our dream of creating a globally competitive SaaS industry but also a fully buoyant ‘Digital India’.

Posted on

Convertible Notes

In this session we take up another announcement by ministry of corporate affairs on convertible notes. This is a step forward to solving the problem of receiving funds as loan from foreign investors as convertible notes.

Sanjay Khan Nagra talks about the issue in the video embedded below.

What is a convertible note?

Convertible notes are debt instruments that converts in to equity, at a later date. The lender initially gives a loan with an understanding that he can convert these in to equity. In most cases, this later date is the date of next valuation of the company. If there is no next round of valuation, the company should return the debt back to lender in a fixed time interval.

Convertible notes are quite popular in startup ecosystems like Silicon Valley in USA. In India, there are other forms of convertible instruments. Such as CCDS/CCPS (compulsorily convertible debenture or preference share). These are not exactly akin to convertible notes prevalent in valley.

Ministry of corporate affairs has announced acceptance of the convertible note as a concept for startups through a circular no. G.S.R. 639(E) New Delhi, dated 29th June, 2016.

What is the new in the recent announcement?

In existing CCD/CCP instruments, company receiving funds upfront enters into an agreement defining the value or a formula at which these will convert in to equity. This value, at which they will convert cannot be lower than the present fair market value. The CCD or CCP are compulsorily convertible if there is a next round of valuation in a specified period. If there is no valuation in that period, then the money raised remains as a simple loan to be repaid.

The convertible note practice in valley is better placed. There also, a convertible note is also a loan given by investor to company. The difference being, the lender gets an advantage to convert debt to equity at a later date at a discounted rate.

So if a Rs.10 share value at later date is Rs. 50, the lender may get a conversion at Rs. 40. Next valuation round may also happen at lower than present fair market value.

So, this seems more of less like similar, what is the problem then?

The anomaly is that the Indian company can raise funds using convertible notes from Indian lenders only, and not from foreign investors.

RBI does not allow valuation linked convertibles notes. iSPIRT approached RBI with this stay-in-India check list item. RBI felt that there has to be an acceptance in company law for the convertible note concept, as akin to the practice in developed world.

iSPIRT approached ministry of corporate affairs (MCA), and the new announcement is a step forward in this direction. We soon expect RBI to follow suit and permit convertible notes from foreign investors.

Are there any conditions in MCA announcement?

MCA has announced a definition for “convertible notes” under G.S.R. 639(E) by amending the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014. You can read the complete circular here.

The limitations are:

a) The provision of Convertible note applies only to Startups
b) The amount has to be 25 lakhs or more

As per circular the definition of convertible note is added as follows:
“convertible note” means an instrument evidencing receipt of money initially as a debt, which is repayable at the option of the holder, or which is convertible into such number of equity shares of the start-up company upon occurrence of specified events and as per the other terms and conditions agreed to and indicated in the instrument.

iSPIRT stand

iSPIRT will actively pursue this further with RBI.

DIPP and MCA have taken an appreciable step forward, in getting the regulation relaxed for DIPP registered Startups.

However, in order to bring the Indian startup ecosystem at par with developed world, the limitation to DIPP registered Startups should not exist. These measures are to be adopted for all startups/companies across country.

Posted on

Startup Action Plan: Glass Half Full

Innovation and entrepreneurship are cornerstones of sustained economic growth. The Government has done well to recognise this by launching the Startup India Action Plan. The event was an unprecedented and resounding success. The energy in entrepreneurs, leaders of unicorns, seasoned investors, Government officials, etc was intense and, for most part, contagious. No doubt the Startup India Action Plan has provided various important exemptions and incentives to startups. However, the key question is this – Whether the Action Plan adequately addresses the irritants that make the Indian startup ecosystem unattractive? In our view, the answer is no.

iSPIRT has been closely associated with the Government in this endeavour, and had put together a list of thirty four key irritants that need to be resolved to arrest the exodus of Indian startups. The list is called the Stay-in-India Checklist. Of the thirty four issues, ten each came under the Revenue Department and the RBI, nine came under the MCA, and the remaining came under multiple departments such as the DEA, DIPP, RBI, MCA, and SEBI. Based on our analysis of the Action Plan and other announcements made, the present status looks like the following:

Startup Action plan

As noted above, only one RBI issue has been resolved so far (that too by way of a clarification during our discussion prior to the Startup India event). There was no announcement on any other RBI issues as part of the Action Plan. For creating a vibrant startup ecosystem, it is imperative that the investments from foreign sources are made easier. While the RBI, MCA, and other authorities had assured us that action will be taken on most of these issues (see the orange category above) once the definition of ‘startup’ is released, so far, there is no clarity as to when such action will be taken.

We will internally continue to interact on the outstanding (orange and red) items with the RBI, MCA, Revenue, and other departments. We hope that these issues will also be resolved by the relevant authorities soon.