Shagun Corporate Consultants Pvt Ltd

26/04/2017

Excel Shortcuts

17/09/2015

) 🍎SECTION 234E🍎

👉Provisions of sec.234E has been made applicable w.e.f. 1st July, 2012. It states that “Amount of late fee @ Rs.200/- per day shall be paid before delivering a TDS statement”.

👉But prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment in respect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section 234E of the Act.
👉So there were discussions on operational efficiency of the section 234E, and some people believe that, any fees u/s 234E is payable only after a period of 1-Jun-2015.

📠Honourable Bombay High Court, in the case of Rashmikant Kundalia and another [1] dated February 2015, has upheld the constitutional validity of the said section.
📹Recently, two ITAT(Chennai ITAT & Amritsar ITAT) judgements have been pronounced on the operational part of section 234E

🔮Both the ITAT has come to a conclusion that, recovery u/s 200A before 1-Jun-2015 of fee u/s 234E is not possible. This answer is to question u/s 200A.

📝After Amendment in section 200A by Finance Bill 2015 w.e.f. 01-06-2015, following position emerge

👉Till 31-5-2015 Income tax department has no power to process TDS return U/s 200A to levy TDS late fee U/s 234E
👉but w.e.f. 1-6-2015 as per Sec. 200A income tax department can levy late fee U/s 234E @ Rs. 200/- per day on delayed filing of TDS return.
👉so if any late fee is levied before 1-6-2015 appeal can be filed for this or rectification application U/s 154 can be filed to get it cancelled. However, it is advisable to file appeal & not to file S. 154 petition as in d later case debatable issues or lengthy issues cannot succeed.

👉Now if due to mistake any late fee U/s 234E is paid then refund will be granted of such excess late fee.

🍔References
1⃣Bombay High Court in the case of Mr Rashmikant Kundalia and another v UOI WP No. 771 of 2014 dt 6-Feb-2015
2⃣ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited v DCIT (TDS), Gaziabad I.T.A. No.90/Asr /2015 dated 9-Jun-2015.

2) IT:Rectification order passed by Tribunal u/S 254(2) is not appealable before High Court- Saroop Tanneries Ltd. (Punjab & Haryana).

3) IT:Rejection of claim raised in return of income ipso-facto not attract levy of penalty U/s. 271 (1) (c). CIT vs. G.K. Properties Pvt Ltd (Andhra Pradesh High Court).

4) IT:Single Centering & shuttering material used in construction can be treated as plant. CIT Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar (Andhra Pradesh High Court).

5)CL: New e-Form CRA-4 (filing Cost Audit Report in XBRL format) available for filing w.e.f. 11.09.15.

6) CL: Form AOC-4 XBRL notified in Companies (Filing of Documents & Forms in XBRL) Rules, 2015 dated 9th Sep, 2015.

7) XBRL Draft C&I Taxonomy 2015 and Draft Business Rules 2015 released for conversion of Financial Statement for FY 2014-15 into XBRL Mode

19/06/2015

LOAN TO DIRECTOR (185)
As per Section 185: No Company ( Private & Public)
• Directly or Indirectrly
• Advance any loan, including book debt,
• to any of its directors or to any **other person in whom the director is interested
• Any guarantee or provide any security in connection with any loan taken by him or such other person
**TO ANY OTHER PERSON IN WHOM DIRECTOR INTERESTED MEAN :
i. Any other director of the lending company, or of the holding company of the lending company
ii. Any partner or relative of such director
iii. Any private company of which director is a director or member
iv. Body Corporate in which 25% or more voting power rests with one or more directors
v. Body Corporate whose Board accustomed to act on directions of BOD or Directorsof lending company.

**But after publication of Exemption Notification on Private Limited Companies
(Dated 05.06.2015): (yet to be notified)
The above restriction will now no longer be applicable to the Private Companies which satisfies All The 3 Conditions mentioned below:
a) In whose share capital no other body corporate has invested any money;
b) If the borrowings of such a company from banks or financial institutions or any body corporate is less than [lower of (i) Two times of paid up share capital or (ii) Rs. 50 Crore]; and
c) Such a company has no default in repaymnt of such borrowings subsisting at the time of making transactions under this section.

**But after Companies Amendment Act, 2015,
Provisions of Section 185 will not applicable on followings:

(c) Any loan made by a Holding Company to its Wholly own Subsidiary Company or any guarantee given or security provided by a Holding Company in respect of any loan made to its wholly own subsidiary Company,
(d) Any guarantee given or security provided by a Holding Company in respect of Loan made by any Bank or financial institution to its subsidiary Company.
Provided that the loan made under clauses (c) and (d) are utilized by the subsidiary company for its principal business activity.
S. No. QUESTION & ANSWERS
A. Can Loan given by Holding to Subsidiary?
Assuming that directors of subsidiary co. (as well as “other persons in whom directors are interested”) do not hold any shares and are not director in holding co, Sec. 185 is not attracted.
MAY NOT COVERED IN
• Clause (c) (for Pvt Ltd co.,only if director is a director or member),
• Clause (d) (only if the director either by himself or two or more such directors hold 25% or more of total voting power in the borrowing company)
• Clause (e) (only if borrowing company /its Board/Directors are accustomed to act as per the Directors of the board/Directors of the lending company.)

KINDLY NOTE THAT TO ATTRACT SEC. 185,

• Any interest of director (or other person) in his “personal capacity (not holding as nominee of company)” is relevant.
• Interest of holding co. in subsidiary is not relevant.
B. Can Loan given by Subsidiary to Holding?
Assuming that directors of holding co. (as well as “other persons in whom directors are interested”) do not hold any shares and are not director in subsidiary co, Sec. 185 is not attracted.
MAY NOT COVERED IN
• Clause (c) (for Pvt Ltd co.,only if director is a director or member),
• Clause (d) (only if the director either by himself or two or more such directors hold 25% or more of total voting power in the borrowing company,
• Clause (e) (only if borrowing company /its Board/Directors are accustomed to act as per the Directors of the board/Directors of the lending company.
KINDLY NOTE THAT TO ATTRACT SEC. 185,
• Any interest of director (or other person) in his “personal capacity (not holding as nominee of company)” is relevant.
• Interest of holding co. in subsidiary is not relevant..
C. Can Gurantee & Security provide by Holding Company to Subsidiary Company?
Gurantee & Security can be provide by holding company in respect of Loan made by Bank And Financial Institution to Subsidiary Company.
Condition: Subsidiary use such loan for Principle Business Activity

D. Non Applicability of Section 185 in case of Wholly Own Subsidiary Company.
There is no restriction on giving Loan or Guarantees or Security by Holding Company to its Wholly Own Subsidiary (WOS) Company.
E. Loan given in Ordinary Course of Business.
A company which in the ordinary course of its business provides loans or gives guarantees or securities for the due repayment of any loan and in respect of loans an interest is charged at a rate not less than the bank rate declared by the Reserve Bank of India.
Here Ordinary Course of Business means: (Source: A Ramaiya page No. 3308)
i. Something which is done as a matter of Corporate Historical practice is, as a matter of law, done “in the ordinary course of Business”.
ii. Whether a transaction has taken place “in the ordinary course business” was a matter to be determined objectively by reference to business practices in the commercial world, the ordinary operational activities of business as a going concern, the past practices of a company and its dealing with creditors.
There is Two Test:
i. If the company is engaged in lending activities regularity and
ii. Lend not only to directors/directors' entities but also to "arms' length parties/unrelated parties
Hence, All NBFCs may not be engaged in lending activities in Ordinary Course.
K. Conditions for give loan in Ordinary Course of Business.
1. The Lending Company has in the past provided loans/guarantees/securities to such entities as a matter of routine. The frequency of such transactions and a certain amount of continuity is imperative as ‘business’ itself implies carrying on a particular trade or vocation as a ‘continuous’ activity by application of labour, skill and money to earn the income. Also, important is that such transactions have been appropriately disclosed in the financial statements of the Lending Company for the past years. The disclosure of such transactions in the financial statement indicate that such activities were being carried on normally in the usual course of business, specifically inclusion of the amounts involved as ‘business income’ gives further credence to the fact.
2. The memorandum of association of the Lending Company allows for such transactions i.e. the providing of loans/guarantees/security to other entities should be part of at least the incidental or ancillary objects of the memorandum of association. The Courts have not been uniform in their ruling with respect to the significance of the objects clause of the memorandum of association in making this assessment. The Courts also differ on whether an activity is in ‘ordinary course’ only if part of the main objects is or whether an activity ancillary to the main objects may also be considered so.
• The Lending Company has passed a board resolution, specifically, categorizing the transaction as being in ‘ordinary course of businesses. Also, the board should have examined the transaction from the perspective of Section 185 and should have resolved to undertake the same. The consent of all the directors present at the meeting should have been obtained in accordance with Section 186 (5) of the Act. Whether a transaction is in the ‘ordinary course of businesses is a question of fact and a board resolution is important in making this assessment.
F. What is the planning for sec 185?
1) Convert both Lender co & receiver co to LLP or
2) Convert other co (to whom loan is given) to public Ltd to enjoy 25% limit or 3) Rearrange shareholding pattern & directorship pattern:
a) Appoint new directors in lender Co, who personally neither hold any share in
Other company nor are directors in other co. If their relatives holds shares or
are directors than there is no problem or
b) One can gift shares to other relative to rearrange shareholding pattern
G. How to rearrange shareholding & Directorship pattern as referred in Q-F above?
Suppose A,B,C,D are 4 members in a family. They have 2 Cos: A Pvt Ltd & C Pvt Ltd.
i) We can appoint A& B as directors of A Pvt Ltd. & gift all shares in name of C & D in A Pvt Ltd to A & B.
ii) ii) We can appoint C& D as directors of C Pvt Ltd & gift all shares in name of A & B in C Pvt Ltd to C & D.
H. Is Loan given before 12th Sep, 2013 affected by sec 185?
Existing loan/guarantee/security provided before 12th Sep, 2013 is not affected by above provisions. However, it should not be renewed & should be repaid on due date.
I. Possible Situations for Giving Loan, Guarantee and Security?
Giving Loan in ordinary course of its business provides loans or gives guarantees or securities for the due repayment of any loan and in respect of loans an interest is charged at a rate not less than the bank rate declared by the Reserve Bank of India.
Change Composition of Board of Borrowing Company: In such a manner that the Director of lending Company are neither the Director nor the shareholder in the Borrowing Company.
Making Borrowing Company as WOS of Lendig Company.
Converting Group partnership firms and Private Limited Companies into LLP.
Converting group private limited company into public limited company and restructuring the Board in such a manner that the voting power of common directors kept below 25% in such Public Limited Company.

K. Punishment for violation of Section 185.
According to sub-section 2 of Section 185 of the Act, if any loan is advanced or a guarantee or security is given or provided in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1):
(a) The Company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than 5 lakh rupees but which may extend to 25 lakh rupees, and

(b) The Director Or The Other Person to whom any loan is advanced or guarantee or security is given or provided in connection with any loan taken by him or the other person, shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to 6 months or with fine which shall not be less than 5 lakh rupees but which may extend to 25 lakh rupees, or with both.

L. "to other persons in whom directors are interested"
i. Individual
ii. Director of lending company ;
[ABC Limited has given the loan to A, Director of ABC Limited]
b. Director of a company which is its holding company ;
[PQR Limited is holding company of ABC Ltd, ABC Ltd has given the loan to P, director of PQR Limited]
c. Any partner of any such director ;
[ABC Limited has given the loan to D, Partner in AD Partnership Firm in which A and D are partner and A is also director of ABC Limited]
d. Relative of any such director ;
[ABC Limited has given the loan to E, Relative of Directors of ABC Limited]
ii. Firm
iii. in which any such director is a partner;
[ABC Limited has given the loan to AD Partnership Firm in which A and D are partners and A is also director of ABC Limited]
b. in which any relative of such director is a partner
[ABC Limited has given the loan to DE Partnership Firm in which E and D are partners and E is Relative of director of ABC Limited]

iii. Private Limited Company :
a. of which such director is a director
[ABC Limited has given the loan to XYZ Limited in which A is director of ABC Limited and XYZ Limited i.e. common director]
b. of which such director is a member;
[ABC Limited has given the loan to XYZ Limited, where A is member of XYZ Limited and is also director of ABC Limited]

M. Definition of “body corporate’’
Body corporate means as defined u/s 2(11) of the act. It is inclusive definition. Section 2(11) of the companies act 2013 defines ’body corporate’ or “corporation” includes a company incorporated outside India, but does not include-
i. a co-operative registered under any law relating to co-operative societies: and
ii. any other body corporate (not being company as defined in this act), which the central government may, by notification, specify in this behalf:
The term “body corporate “is wider than the expression “company “and is used in several section of the act to denote not only a company incorporated in India but also a foreign company .it includes a corporation formed under any special law of Indian or a foreign country ,except as expressly excluded by the definition. It includes all public financial institutions mentioned in section 4A of the act as well as nationalized banks incorporated under section 3(4) of the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertaking) Act.1970. However, it excludes a body corporate, which is not a company under the act and which is specified by the central government in the notification in official gazette.
N. Is receiving of Share Application and Advance covered u/s 185?
Here is no contravention of sec 185 if share application money/advance for property/goods/services is given to specified person u/s 185. However, private placement provisions have to be complied, if share application money is given on or after 1st April, 2014.
O. Can company give loan to member of Company?
The Company can give the loan to member of the company subject to not relative of director of the company.
P. Offence done under Section 185 is compoundable or not?
The offence committed under this section is compoundable in accordance with the provisions of section 441 of the Act.


IMPORTANT NOTE:
Given of loan in the ordinary course of business.
Any loan advanced or guarantee/security provided by a company, which in its ordinary course of business provides loans or gives guarantees or securities for repayment of any loan, provided that such loans shall not be provided at an interest rate less than the bank rate declared by the Reserve Bank of India. No loan may be given by the Lending Company at an interest rate lower than the prevailing yield of one year, three year, five year or ten year government security closest to the tenor of the loan. The phrase ‘ordinary course of business’ has also not been defined under the Act. This is because there can be no universal meaning ascribed to it. What is ordinary for one entity or one type of business or one sector or even one region may not be so for another.
However, based on judicial precedents and keeping in view the intent and purpose of the provision, a transaction can be said to be in ‘ordinary course of business’, if:

1. The Lending Company has in the past provided loans/guarantees/securities to such entities as a matter of routine. The frequency of such transactions and a certain amount of continuity is imperative as ‘business’ itself implies carrying on a particular trade or vocation as a ‘continuous’ activity by application of labour, skill and money to earn the income. Also, important is that such transactions have been appropriately disclosed in the financial statements of the Lending Company for the past years.
The disclosure of such transactions in the financial statement indicate that such activities were being carried on normally in the usual course of business, specifically inclusion of the amounts involved as ‘business income’ gives further credence to the fact.

2. The memorandum of association of the Lending Company allows for such transactions i.e. the providing of loans/guarantees/security to other entities should be part of at least the incidental or ancillary objects of the memorandum of association. The Courts have not been uniform in their ruling with respect to the significance of the objects clause of the memorandum of association in making this assessment. The Courts also differ on whether an activity is in ‘ordinary course’ only if is part of the main objects or whether an activity ancillary to the main objects may also be considered so

• The Lending Company has passed a board resolution, specifically, categorizing the transaction as being in ‘ordinary course of businesses. Also, the board should have examined the transaction from the perspective of Section 185 and should have resolved to undertake the same. The consent of all the directors present at the meeting should have been obtained in accordance with Section 186 (5) of the Act. Whether a transaction is in the ‘ordinary course of business’ is a question of fact and a board resolution is important in making this assessment

1. The loan documents/security documents executed for the purpose of the loan/security/guarantee provided by the Lending Company should contain a clause stating that the transaction contemplated therein is in ‘ordinary course of business’.

2. The transaction should be conducted at arms’ length basis and appropriate disclosures should be made with respect to the interest of any management of the Lending Company in the entity receiving the loan, guarantee or security. Ultimately the aim of Section 185 is to prohibit related party transactions where the Lending Company provides undue advantage or gain to any other entity related to the management of the Lending Company and to avoid conflict of interest scenarios for directors of such Lending Company.

3. The Lending Company (not if it is a banking company or an insurance company or a housing finance company providing the loan/security/guarantee in ordinary course of business or company engaged in business of financing of companies or of providing infrastructural facilities should have complied/should comply with the following conditions under Section 186 of the Act:

08/06/2015

Exports have cratered, profits are down and the Fed is worried

The strong dollar is killing us.

We’ve heard all kinds of valid reasons for the sharp slowdown in the economy over the past six months: the weather, the port strike, the caution of consumers, the collapse in oil-patch investments, and even something called “residual seasonality” in the statistics measuring gross domestic product.

Those (mostly temporary) factors can certainly explain a big part of why GDP went from a 5% growth pace last summer to a 0.7% contraction this winter.

But there’s something more troubling that’s missing in those pat explanations: the exchange value of the U.S. dollar BUXX, +0.10%

When the dollar gets strong, goods and services made in the USA get more expensive, and imports from foreign sources get cheaper. Manufacturers lose competitiveness. The owners’ profits suffer, workers’ wages suffer, and millions of other U.S. companies that depend on selling to those crippled businesses and workers also suffer.

The economy slows, and jobs are lost. Job growth in manufacturing, for instance, is only half as strong now as it was before the move in the dollar last summer. In May, just 7,000 manufacturing jobs were created.

Over the past year, the dollar has appreciated by about 18% against the currencies of our trading partners. That’s enough to take a full percentage point off our GDP, based on a rule-of-thumb estimated by economists at Goldman Sachs GS, +0.76% And when GDP is growing at an average of only 2.2%, that’s a serious hit.

Since the impact of the dollar began to be felt last summer, exports have fallen for the first time since the Great Recession. (Let’s not forget that weak global growth also reduced demand for U.S. exports at the same time that they became more expensive.) Meanwhile, imports are rising rapidly, despite the bottlenecks caused by the port strike.
Foreign trade has been a big negative for U.S. GDP growth in the past two quarters.

In the first three months of the year, the widening trade deficit subtracted 1.9 percentage points from GDP after subtracting 1 percentage point in the fourth quarter. That’s the biggest two-quarter drag from trade since the Asian financial crisis of 1998 and the second-largest drag since the early 1980s, when the strong dollar forced the major industrialized nations to meet at the Plaza Hotel in New York to conspire to weak it.

Roughly half of the decline in exports can be attributed to the strong dollar, according to Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight.

The impact of a strong dollar isn’t just an idle academic exercise. U.S. companies, big and small, have been complaining about the dollar for months in their quarterly reports and in their forward guidance.The latest Beige Book was filled with comments from businesses about how the dollar was hurting their sales. So was the ISM’s survey of manufacturing executives.

In theory, a strong dollar should drive down prices, a boon to consumers and businesses that aren’t exposed to direct foreign competition, but the deflationary benefits of a stronger dollar don’t seem to be helping the economy just yet. Consumers, for instance, are putting away the money they’ve saved at the pump.

Officials at the Federal Reserve have also noticed the dollar. They usually refrain from talking about it, going along with the ridiculous tradition that only the Treasury should comment on the currency’s value, as if the Fed has nothing at all to do with it.

But lately, they’ve been expressing their concerns. In March, Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen said “the strong dollar” was one reason that exports had softened.

In the latest redacted minutes of the Fed’s secretive meeting in April, some members of the Fed’s policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee worried that “the damping effects” of a stronger dollar “might be larger and longer-lasting than previously anticipated.”

The strong dollar complicates things for the Fed. Higher interest rates would likely strengthen the dollar further. Implicit in the Fed’s forecast for a rate hike later this year is a forecast that the economy will overcome whatever drag the dollar exerts on it.

01/06/2015

STORY OF AN NPA (NON-PERFORMING ASSET)
Once upon a time, he was a bright young engineer full of patriotic zeal. He had graduated from the country's most prestigious institute and while his classmates were preparing for migrating to USA, he had decided to serve his country. Twenty years later, he has been converted to an NPA (Non-Performing Asset) and he spends his time reading law books to save his skin in the court case that will haunt him for the rest of his life.

He had started as an employee in a blue-chip company but gave up job to be an entrepreneur. After spending five years to gather some initial capital, he started a small industry with a loan from the largest Bank of India. This was 1987 and the beginning of the tragedy. He had planned the unit based on commitment from a large scale industry who it turned out had given written commitments without being serious about what it committed. The baby was born sick and it was clear to the engineer-entrepreneur that there was no hope. There was just no exit route and he was forced to keep the new-born alive. As soon as the production started in 1988, he thought of various ways of saving the baby and discussed the same with the Bank with who asked him to write it all out in hundred different ways. He did that and also followed it up with personal visits to officers of the Bank. Every day he would spend half the day shunting from one office of the Bank to the other where more often than not he was treated as a dignified beggar. On the rarest of rare occasions when he displayed some sense of self-respect, he was insulted beyond imagination. Reports of such bad behaviour to higher officers were answered with sermons on learning to behave like a businessman.

Bank refused to help him out by giving additional finance. Bank also refused to take over his unit or to help him find a buyer for the unit. In fact they pleaded that they had no such provision. Bank can only take over a unit after a Court orders it to and that may take a few years if not decades. Bank froze his account and insisted that he keep running the unit with a frozen account. He committed his first illegal act by opening an account in another bank. This started a witch-hunt with the Bank using all means at its disposal to pressurize the other bank to close his account. All this while he kept pleading with the Bank to settle the matter amicably, but they were not interested. In 1993, the Bank filed a court case. Seven years later he is still pleading with the Bank to take over his unit on as-is-where-is basis and recover the best value possible. But the Bank believes that a dead horse is more valuable than a live one and they would take over the assets (or what remains of the assets) a few years down the line after being ordered so by Debt Recovery Tribunal. He has offered to pay some money based on his paying capacity and settle the matter out-of-court. Bank is not even interested in talking. The case drags on and he keeps cursing the day he decided to serve the country.

A long story that is boring because everyone likes to read about success and forget about failures. Yet, there is no denying that failure is an essential part of entrepreneurship. Accepting failures gracefully is the key to success and a society that cannot accept failures is doomed.

For a long time, India tried to follow socialism treating all businessmen as crooks and looking at entrepreneurs with suspicion. All talk of liberalization and economic reforms has not changed the mindset of Indian bankers and powers that control the bankers. The legacy of the British raj has survived and flourished in the form of India's gigantic cancerous bureaucracy. The tentacles of this cancer have spread to almost all fields in India including banking. Indian banks and financial institutions (FI's) are crying hoarse about their large Non-Performing Assets portfolio and are blaming the entrepreneurs, businessmen, Government, judicial system, courts - practically everybody except themselves for the mess that has been created primarily by them.

Any lending involves the following three stages where discretion needs to be exercised (a) Evaluation and assessment of the proposal (b) Continuing Support during the currency of the loan by additional loan or by non-fund based activities (c) Exit decision and modality. Indian Banks and FI's exhibit extremes of behaviour at each of the above stages. A rule-based approach precludes reasonable application of mind. Evaluation of project idea and the management is something that most Indian banks and FI's are least equipped for. This leads to the banker acting too liberal on all projects that are related to the flavor-of-the-month as well as to insisting on collaterals from everyone without taking into consideration any other competencies of the entrepreneur. For example if wind is blowing in favour of software, all projects involving software will be supported. On the other hand if foods is not being favored, a genuinely good proposal in foods will be rejected by all banks. This naturally encourages crooks to keep smelling for the flavor-of-the-month. As soon as they smell it out, the next step is to get a readymix 'bankable' project report from a con-man (also called consultant). Banks and FI's are too willing to finance against such reports to shady businessmen who may also sometimes grease their palms instead of looking for genuine project ideas backed by competent men of integrity. Herd mentality of the bankers and FI's creates excess capacity in any industry that they choose to finance thereby laying the seeds of sickness of that industry. Coupled with the incompetency of the entrepreneurs and the shady intentions with which the projects were set up, the sickness spreads like wild fire.

After a loan has been disbursed, it is an accepted norm that the Bank and FI's have a duty to keep smelling for and to act promptly on key signals that indicate the health of the recipient of the loan. Rule-bound bankers in India do collect all the necessary information and pile it up in neat reports and files. It is not unusual for bankers to even advise their clients to cook up their accounts to either satisfy the Banker's Health Code requirements or to get their unit classified as sick under the relevant laws. This having been done, the banker can sleep peacefully. Acting on the signals that emanate from these reports is none of his business. It is the entrepreneur who has to exercise to convince a long chain of stubborn bank and FI officers to rise from their slumber. This long chain operates on a veto system. Each and every member of the chain has a right to delay and veto and no one, howsoever senior, has a right to over-ride a veto or to ask someone to expedite. So the entrepreneur is now caught in a game where almost every petty Bank and FI officer satisfies his ego by kicking him where it hurts most before obliging him by moving the file to the next officer. Bank's and FI's key decisions about nursing versus exit get influenced by this merry-go-round ego trip of the officers. The attitude that the Bank will lose more than the entrepreneur by a delay in such key decisions is completely missing in Indian bankers and FI's who see themselves as demi-gods waiting for the right 'puja' (rites of worship) to be performed by the faithful before granting the boons.

Honourable exit is something that is an alien concept to the Indian bankers and FI's. The only exit route known to banks and FI's in India is to issue a Recall of Loan letter. The letter is just a stepping stone to filing a suit and has no other practical utility. As soon as a Recall letter is issued, the banker is relaxed because his headaches are now over. He will pass the necessary entries in his books classifying the loan as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). He can now blame everybody else for all his omissions and commissions with the entrepreneur being the key accused. In any other part of the world, the first option that a banker is supposed to exercise with the support and consent of the entrepreneur is a change in ownership. It always makes more sense to sell a business as a going concern rather than sell it as a dead horse. In any business there are intangibles like goodwill, key customers, key employees who may be lost as soon as a court case is filed. Sometimes such intangible assets may be more valuable than tangibles like land, building, plant & machinery etc. Indian banks and financial institutions live in a fool's paradise thinking that a court or tribunal can get them all that they need. What they do not realize is that no judicial body can help them get possession of a running unit without sacrificing its vitality.

The bureaucratic attitude of Indian banks and FI's has had two negative effects. On one hand it has fed and strengthened a generation of shady businessmen and con-men who know how to fool the banks for a multitude of projects - some of which even turn profitable. On the other hand it has killed a new generation of capable entrepreneurs. Indian Banks and FI's have looked at balance sheets and financial statements for too often. It is time that they learn to look at human capabilities. It is time that they learn to evaluate ideas rather than run in herd-like manner. Tribunals and Courts are like surgeons who can cut and operate but cannot give life and good health. Unless Indian banks and FI's learn to build their health as well as the health of their clients, they will keep converting useful assets of the country into NPA's.

Address

1st, Floor, 36, Strand Road, Barabazar Market Room 08
Kolkata
700001

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Shagun Corporate Consultants Pvt Ltd posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Shagun Corporate Consultants Pvt Ltd:

Share