KIFB and C&AG Audit - An analysis

 

Power of the C&AG to Audit KIFB in Kerala: A Constitutional Perspective

The power of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (C&AG) to audit the activities of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIFB/KIIFB) has emerged as a significant constitutional and fiscal issue in Kerala. The debate primarily revolves around whether KIIFB, though structured as a statutory infrastructure financing body, falls within the constitutional and statutory audit jurisdiction of the C&AG under Article 149 of the Constitution of India and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.

Article 149 of the Constitution empowers the C&AG to perform such duties and exercise such powers in relation to the accounts of the Union, the States, and “any other authority or body” as prescribed by Parliament. (Comptroller and Auditor General of India) The constitutional intent behind this provision is to ensure transparency, accountability, and legislative control over public finances. The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted these powers broadly in order to preserve the constitutional role of the C&AG as the guardian of public finances.

In the landmark decision of Association of Unified Telecom Service Providers v. Union of India, the Supreme Court observed that the powers of the C&AG under Article 149 are constitutional in nature and form part of the basic structure of the Constitution. (Comptroller and Auditor General of India) The Court held that entities dealing with public resources or public revenue cannot escape audit scrutiny merely because they operate through separate corporate or statutory structures. Similarly, in Arvind Gupta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the C&AG to undertake performance audits and emphasized that public accountability extends beyond traditional government departments. (Juris Codex)

The statutory framework under Sections 14, 15 and 20 of the CAG Act, 1971 further enlarges the audit jurisdiction where substantial government funds, grants, guarantees, or public revenues are involved. Judicial pronouncements have repeatedly clarified that the expression “authority or body” must receive a liberal interpretation in matters involving public finance and state-backed liabilities.

In the context of KIIFB, the argument supporting C&AG audit is strengthened by the fact that KIIFB raises funds backed by earmarked state revenues and government guarantees. A substantial portion of motor vehicle tax and fuel cess is statutorily assigned for repayment obligations of KIIFB borrowings. Consequently, the liabilities ultimately affect the financial position of the State of Kerala. This close fiscal nexus with the State brings KIIFB within the broader framework of public accountability and legislative oversight.

The Kerala Government has often contended that KIIFB is an independent statutory entity with separate accounts and therefore outside conventional state audit mechanisms. However, constitutional jurisprudence indicates that form cannot override substance where public money and sovereign guarantees are involved. Courts in India have increasingly preferred a functional and purposive interpretation while determining the scope of C&AG audit powers.

Therefore, in light of Article 149, the CAG Act, 1971, and the judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the power of the C&AG to audit KIIFB appears constitutionally sustainable. Such audit jurisdiction is consistent with the larger constitutional principles of fiscal transparency, democratic accountability, and legislative supervision over public funds. The KIIFB controversy thus represents not merely an accounting dispute, but an important constitutional question concerning the limits of governmental financial innovation and the enduring role of the C&AG in safeguarding public finance.

Repatriation of Investment Funds from India

 

Repatriation of Investment Funds from India: Options Available for Foreign Investors

India continues to attract significant foreign investment across sectors such as technology, manufacturing, real estate, infrastructure, GCCs, and financial services. While entering India has become comparatively easier through liberalized FDI policies, many foreign investors still view “repatriation of funds” back to their home country as one of the major practical and regulatory challenges in India.

Understanding the available repatriation routes, tax implications, FEMA compliance requirements, and banking procedures is critical for investors planning an exit or periodic profit extraction from India.

Why Repatriation Becomes a Concern

Foreign investors generally face concerns relating to:

• FEMA compliance and RBI regulations

• Tax withholding in India

• Delays in banking approvals and documentation

• Pricing guidelines during transfer of shares

• Capital gains taxation

• Dividend distribution procedures

• Restrictions in certain sectors

• Procedural complexity during liquidation or closure

However, India does permit lawful repatriation of capital and profits through several established routes when investments are structured properly.

Common Modes of Repatriation from India

1. Dividend Distribution

One of the simplest and most commonly used methods.

Indian companies may distribute post-tax profits to foreign shareholders as dividends.

Key Features

• Freely repatriable through authorized dealer banks

• No RBI approval generally required if FEMA compliant

• Subject to applicable withholding tax

• DTAA benefits may reduce tax rates

Practical Use

Suitable for:

• Long-term strategic investors

• Parent-subsidiary structures

• GCC and service companies generating recurring profits

Important Note

After abolition of Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT), dividend income is taxable in the hands of shareholders.

2. Share Sale / Exit to Another Investor

Foreign investors may sell shares of the Indian company to:

• another foreign investor,

• Indian resident buyer,

• PE/VC fund,

• strategic acquirer.

Repatriation Mechanism

Sale proceeds can be remitted outside India after:

• payment of capital gains tax,

• filing of required FEMA forms,

• obtaining CA certificate (Form 15CB where applicable).

FEMA Considerations

Pricing guidelines under FEMA must be followed.

Unlisted company shares typically require valuation by:

• Chartered Accountant,

• Merchant Banker, or

• Registered Valuer.

3. Buyback of Shares

Indian companies may buy back shares held by foreign investors.

Advantages

• Structured exit route

• Useful where no third-party buyer exists

• Can optimize ownership restructuring

Challenges

• Buyback tax implications

• Company law compliance under the Ministry of Corporate Affairs framework

• FEMA reporting requirements

4. Capital Reduction

Companies may reduce share capital and return money to shareholders.

Common Scenarios

• Partial investor exit

• Restructuring excess capital

• Business downsizing

Requires

• Shareholder approval

• Tribunal / regulatory compliance in certain cases

• FEMA and tax compliance

This route is more documentation-intensive but can be effective in restructuring investments.

5. Royalty and Technical Service Fees

Foreign parent entities providing:

• technical know-how,

• software licenses,

• management support,

• branding,

• IP licensing,

may receive royalty or technical service payments from the Indian entity.

Advantages

• Regular outward remittance

• Operationally efficient

• Common in technology and consulting sectors

Considerations

• Transfer pricing compliance

• Withholding tax applicability

• Proper inter-company agreements

6. External Commercial Borrowings (ECB)

Foreign investors may lend funds to Indian companies under ECB regulations.

Repatriation Mechanism

Repayment occurs through:

• interest payments, and

• principal repayment.

Suitable For

• Infrastructure projects

• Manufacturing

• Capital-intensive businesses

Regulated By

The Reserve Bank of India ECB framework.

7. LLP Profit Repatriation

Foreign investors in LLPs may repatriate:

• profit share,

• capital contribution,
  subject to FEMA compliance.

Important

LLPs receiving FDI must operate only in sectors permitting:

• 100% automatic route, and

• no FDI-linked performance conditions.

8. Liquidation / Winding Up

Upon closure of business operations, surplus assets after settlement of liabilities may be repatriated to foreign shareholders.

Conditions

• Completion of liquidation process

• Tax clearance

• Auditor and CA certification

• FEMA compliance

This is usually the final exit mechanism.

Tax Considerations in Repatriation

Tax efficiency plays a major role in determining the repatriation structure.

Key Tax Areas

Dividend Withholding Tax

Applicable on dividend remittances to foreign shareholders.

Capital Gains Tax

Depends on:

• holding period,

• nature of shares,

• treaty eligibility,

• residential status of investor.

DTAA Benefits

India has Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA) with multiple countries including:

• Singapore,

• UAE,

• Mauritius,

• Netherlands,

• USA,

• UK.

Proper treaty structuring can significantly reduce tax leakage.

FEMA and Banking Documentation

Banks usually require:

• CA certificate,

• Form 15CA / 15CB,

• Board resolution,

• valuation reports,

• audited financial statements,

• tax payment proof,

• FEMA compliance confirmation.

Delays often arise due to incomplete documentation rather than legal restrictions.

Structuring Matters at Entry Stage

Many repatriation challenges originate from improper initial structuring.

Foreign investors should evaluate:

• jurisdiction selection,

• holding company structure,

• FDI route,

• sectoral caps,

• tax treaty access,

• debt vs equity mix,

• shareholder agreements,

• exit rights,
  before investing.

Proper entry structuring significantly improves future repatriation flexibility.

Emerging Trend: GCC and Cross-Border Service Models

India’s growing Global Capability Center (GCC) ecosystem has increased the use of:

• intercompany service arrangements,

• management fee models,

• royalty structures,

• cost-plus arrangements,
  as efficient repatriation channels.

This is particularly common among:

• technology companies,

• consulting firms,

• engineering support centers,

• finance shared services operations.

Conclusion

India does allow legitimate repatriation of foreign investment and profits through multiple regulatory channels. The challenge for investors is usually not the absence of legal routes, but the complexity of tax, FEMA, valuation, and banking procedures.

With proper investment structuring, documentation discipline, and regulatory compliance, foreign investors can successfully repatriate dividends, capital gains, royalties, management fees, and exit proceeds from India in a legally efficient manner.

As India continues to position itself as a global investment destination, simplifying cross-border fund movement and investor exits will remain critical to improving investor confidence and long-term capital inflows.

FCRA AMENDMENT BILL, 2026

THE FCRA AMENDMENT BILL, 2026

India Tightens Its Grip on Foreign Money

 

What Is This All About?

In a major legislative move, the Central Government introduced the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2026, proposing comprehensive reforms to the existing regulatory framework governing foreign funding in India. The bill landed in Parliament amid protests from the Opposition, reigniting a long-running debate about the balance between national security and the freedom of civil society.

But to understand what is changing, you first need to understand what already exists.

 

The Law Behind the Law: What Is FCRA?

The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 replaced an earlier 1976 law to provide a modern and structured framework for regulating foreign contributions in India. It governs the acceptance and use of foreign funds by individuals, NGOs, and associations to ensure transparency and accountability. The Act aims to safeguard national security, sovereignty, public order, and democratic processes by preventing misuse of foreign contributions.

Approximately 16,000 associations are currently registered under FCRA, receiving around ₹22,000 crore annually. That is a staggering amount of money flowing into India’s civil society space every year — funding hospitals, schools, tribal welfare programs, environmental activism, legal aid, disaster relief, and much more. The question has always been: who is watching how it is spent?

The Act was originally enacted in 2010, came into force in 2011, and was amended in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The 2020 amendment introduced stricter compliance and control measures over foreign funding, including the prohibition of sub-granting of foreign funds from one NGO to another. The 2026 bill is the latest in this steady tightening of the screws.

 

What Does the 2026 Amendment Propose?

1. A ‘Designated Authority’ to Take Over NGO Assets

The most significant change is the provision allowing the Centre to take over foreign funds and assets of NGOs in cases of cancellation, surrender, expiry, or non-renewal of FCRA registration. A newly proposed Designated Authority will handle such assets, which may first be held temporarily and eventually brought under permanent government control.

After permanent vesting, assets may be transferred or sold. The Designated Authority may transfer such assets to government bodies or dispose of them, and sale proceeds together with unutilised foreign contributions may be credited to the Consolidated Fund of India. The original entity and its key functionaries are barred from directly or indirectly acquiring an interest in such assets.

2. Automatic Cancellation of Registration

A new Section 14B introduces ‘deemed cessation’ of FCRA registration upon expiry or refusal of renewal. Registration automatically stops in three situations:

•       The organisation fails to apply for renewal

•       The renewal application is rejected

•       The validity period expires without renewal

 

3. Who Is a ‘Key Functionary’? Everyone in Charge.

The definition of ‘key functionary’ now includes directors, partners, trustees, the karta of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), office-bearers of societies, trusts, and trade unions, and any person with control over management, making them personally liable for offences unless they prove lack of knowledge or due diligence.

This is a significant shift. Earlier, an organisation could be penalised; now the individuals running it — board members, trustees, directors — face personal criminal liability.

 

4. Time-Bound Use of Funds

The amendment introduces mandatory timelines for utilisation of foreign funds. Indefinite holding of funds will no longer be allowed. NGOs cannot simply park foreign contributions in accounts; there are now deadlines for spending.

 

5. Central Control Over Investigations

Section 43 of the parent Act is amended, requiring any law enforcement agency or state government to obtain prior clearance from the Centre before beginning an inquiry into FCRA allegations. No police force or state agency can investigate an NGO for FCRA violations without the central government’s green light first.

 

6. Reduced Jail Time, but Fines Remain

Maximum imprisonment has been cut from 5 years to 1 year for FCRA violations — a moderate softening of the criminal penalty, though fines remain unchanged.

 

Who Benefits?

The Government and the Public Exchequer

The government is clearly the primary institutional beneficiary. The Bill introduces a more structured and comprehensive system for managing foreign funds, assets, and compliance, reducing earlier legal ambiguities. Assets from defunct or cancelled NGOs that previously just sat idle or were informally taken over can now be formally absorbed into government use or sold, with proceeds enriching the national treasury.

Ordinary Citizens — In Theory

If foreign money was genuinely being misused to stoke communal tensions, fund anti-national activities, or influence elections, then stricter oversight protects every Indian. The amendment strengthens national security safeguards by regulating foreign influence and encourages responsible governance in NGOs by holding leadership personally accountable.

Compliant, Well-Run NGOs

Organisations that are genuinely transparent, regularly renewed their licences, and maintained proper accounts have nothing to fear. By fixing timelines, expanding liability to key functionaries, and regulating asset use, the amendment ensures better monitoring and responsible utilisation of foreign contributions. Professionally run civil society organisations may even benefit from a cleaner, more credible ecosystem once weak or shell entities are weeded out.

 

Who Bears the Burden?

Small and Mid-Sized NGOs Working in Remote Areas

This is perhaps the most vulnerable group. Grassroots organisations working in tribal belts, remote villages, or disaster-prone areas often lack the administrative capacity to navigate complex compliance systems. Stricter timelines and asset control mechanisms may create compliance pressure on NGOs and discourage smaller organisations dependent on foreign funding. A missed renewal deadline could now mean not just losing a licence but losing the very hospital or school the organisation spent years building.

Religious and Minority Institutions

Many schools, orphanages, hospitals, and welfare centres run by religious bodies — Christian missions, Muslim trusts, and others — rely heavily on foreign contributions from diaspora communities or international faith organisations. Where a permanently vested asset is a place of worship, the Designated Authority must entrust its management in a prescribed manner and ensure that its religious character is maintained. However, critics note this is a protection of religious character, not a guarantee of return to the same community that built it.

Civil Society Activists and Advocacy Groups

The premise that a statute should ‘regulate’ rather than ‘control’ is a fundamental principle of law. While the State has the power to regulate activities in the interest of the general public, it must avoid imposing unreasonable restrictions that amount to the prohibition or total control or takeover of a right. Organisations that advocate for human rights, environmental protection, or hold the government to account are precisely the kind of groups that tend to face scrutiny under successive amendments to this law.

State Governments and Federal Autonomy

Centralised investigation control — requiring prior clearance from the Centre before any inquiry can begin — has raised concerns about excessive concentration of power at the Centre and reduction in state autonomy over enforcement processes. A state government cannot independently investigate a suspicious NGO operating on its soil without Delhi’s approval.

 

Parliament and Legislative Oversight

Congress MP Manish Tewari opposed the bill under Rule 72, alleging excessive delegation of legislative powers, arguing that key aspects — such as asset vesting, management, disposal, timelines, exemptions, and appellate mechanisms — have been left to be determined by the Centre through rules, rather than being clearly defined in the law. This means Parliament is effectively handing the executive a blank cheque to define the rules later, with minimal legislative oversight.

 

Is This Amendment Necessary?

The honest answer is: partly yes, partly debatable.

The case for the amendment is real. There were growing concerns about diversion and misuse of foreign funds despite earlier regulations. Existing provisions lacked clarity regarding management of assets created from foreign contributions, and there were legal ambiguities in handling organisations whose registrations were cancelled, expired, or surrendered. What happened to the buildings, vehicles, and equipment of thousands of cancelled NGOs? There was no clear legal answer — and that genuinely needed fixing.

Approximately 22,000 NGOs have had their registrations cancelled and another 15,000 are expired. That is a massive number of defunct entities whose foreign-funded assets are floating in legal limbo. Addressing that gap is legitimate governance.

However, the manner in which it is being addressed raises legitimate concerns. On reading the proposed Bill, one’s first reaction would be that the ‘R’ for ‘Regulation’ in FCRA should be replaced with a ‘C’ for ‘Control’ — renaming the statute as the ‘Foreign Contribution Control Act.’ This would more aptly reflect the letter and spirit of the law as amended in 2020 and now further sought to be amended in 2026.

The cumulative impact of FCRA amendments over the years has been the progressive shrinking of India’s civil society space. Where the 2010 law sought to regulate, the 2020 amendment controlled, and the 2026 amendment now institutionalises state takeover of assets. Each step, individually justifiable, together creates a chilling effect on the independence of organisations that serve millions of India’s most marginalised communities.

 

The Verdict

The Foreign Contribution Amendment Bill, 2026 is a law with genuinely legitimate objectives — plugging legal gaps, preventing asset misuse, and bringing accountability to the ₹22,000 crore ecosystem of foreign funding. On those narrow counts, it is necessary and overdue.

But necessity does not automatically mean it is good law. The concentration of power in the hands of the central executive, the absence of safeguards against arbitrary asset seizure, the chilling effect on small NGOs, and the lack of clear appellate mechanisms are serious concerns that Parliament must address before the bill becomes law.

The government benefits greatly. Large, well-funded NGOs with professional compliance teams will survive. It is the small organisation in a Kerala fishing village, a Rajasthan tribal school, or a Manipur health clinic — quietly doing the work the state itself has not done — that may find itself on the wrong end of a missed renewal deadline, its assets seized and sold, its years of work undone.

Whether that is a necessary cost of greater national security, or an unacceptable price for communities that have no other source of support, is ultimately a political and moral question that Parliament — and citizens — must answer.

 

Tax Law Updates – 2025

Tax Law Updates – 2025 

1. GST Data Analytics–Driven Notices
   Increased issuance of automated notices based on GST–Income Tax–Customs data integration.

2. Tighter ITC Eligibility Norms
   Greater emphasis on supplier compliance, GSTR-2B matching, and restriction of provisional ITC claims.

3. AIS & TIS as Primary Assessment Tools
   Income-tax assessments increasingly driven by AIS/TIS mismatches rather than scrutiny selection.

4. Expansion of e-Invoicing Coverage
   Lower turnover thresholds brought more MSMEs into mandatory e-invoicing compliance.

5. Stricter TDS/TCS Penalty Enforcement
   Automated late fees, interest, and disallowances triggered for even minor delays or mismatches.

6. Faceless Appeals – Procedural Refinement
   New instructions issued to reduce adjournments and enforce time-bound disposal of tax appeals.

7. Heightened Scrutiny of Foreign Remittances
   Increased reporting and verification under FEMA, Form 15CA/CB, and purpose codes.

8. SEZ & Export GST Refund Tightening
   Refund claims subjected to stricter documentation and endorsement verification.

9. Accountability of Tax Professionals Increased
   Tax audit reports, certifications, and representations faced closer departmental examination.

10. Litigation Management & Settlement Focus
    Government emphasis on early resolution through dispute settlement and reduced litigation measures.

---

Key Takeaway:
2025 marked a shift towards technology-led enforcement, real-time compliance monitoring, and reduced tolerance for procedural lapses.

Legal Update 2025 - Lexfins360

 

LexFins Legal Update 2025 – Key Corporate Law & Regulatory Developments (India)

1. Labour Codes – Gradual State-wise Rollout
   Several States moved closer to implementing the four Labour Codes, pushing corporates to realign HR policies, wage structures, and compliance frameworks in anticipation of full enforcement.

2. Stricter Corporate Governance & Independent Director Oversight
   SEBI and MCA enhanced scrutiny on board independence, related party transactions, and disclosures, increasing accountability of directors and KMPs.

3. Digital Compliance & Paperless MCA Filings
   MCA accelerated digitalisation—web-based forms, auto-scrutiny, and AI-driven checks—reducing manual intervention but increasing penalties for inaccuracies.

4. Heightened Focus on Beneficial Ownership & KYC
   Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO) compliance and Director KYC norms saw stricter enforcement, with non-compliance leading to freezing of DINs and penalties.

5. GST Litigation & Anti-Evasion Drive Intensified
   Authorities focused on fake invoicing, ITC misuse, and SEZ-related supplies, prompting corporates to strengthen documentation and internal controls.

6. IBC – Faster Resolution & Creditor-Driven Processes
   Amendments and judicial trends under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code emphasised time-bound resolution, commercial wisdom of CoC, and reduced scope for delays.

7. Data Protection & Cyber Risk Governance
   Companies moved towards operationalising the Digital Personal Data Protection framework, elevating board-level responsibility for data governance and breach management.

8. SEBI’s Push on ESG & BRSR Compliance
   ESG reporting, especially under BRSR, became more structured, pushing listed entities to integrate sustainability into governance and risk management.

9. Increased Scrutiny on Related Party & Group Transactions
   Inter-company loans, guarantees, and services faced closer regulatory and auditor examination, requiring arm’s length justification and robust approvals.

10. Rise in Corporate Dispute Resolution & Mediation
    Courts and regulators encouraged mediation and settlement mechanisms, making corporate dispute resolution faster and commercially pragmatic.

---

LexFins Insight:
2025 marked a shift from form-based compliance to substance-driven governance, making proactive legal advisory, internal audits, and risk mapping essential for corporates.

 

LexFins 360 – Global Private Company Name Endings Guide

At LexFins 360, we help clients understand international corporate structures. Below is a reference of common private company types and their legal name endings across countries, useful for cross-border business, compliance, and incorporation purposes.

Country	Private Company Type	Typical Ending / Abbreviation	Notes
Germany	Private Limited Company	GmbH	Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung (“Limited Liability Company”)
Austria	Private Limited Company	GmbH	Same as Germany, limited liability
Switzerland	Private Limited Company	GmbH / Sàrl	Sàrl = Société à responsabilité limitée (French-speaking regions)
France	Private Limited Company	SARL	Société à responsabilité limitée (“Limited Liability Company”)
Italy	Private Limited Company	S.r.l.	Società a responsabilità limitata (“Limited Liability Company”)
Spain	Private Limited Company	S.L. / S.L.U.	Sociedad Limitada / Unipersonal (single-member company)
United Kingdom	Private Limited Company	Ltd	Common in England, Wales, Northern Ireland
Ireland	Private Limited Company	Ltd / Teoranta	Teoranta = Limited in Irish language
India	Private Limited Company	Pvt Ltd	Under Companies Act, 2013
USA	Limited Liability Company	LLC	Limited Liability Company
Canada	Limited Liability Company	Ltd / Inc / Corp / LLC	Depends on province and federal registration
Australia	Proprietary Limited Company	Pty Ltd	Proprietary Limited company
New Zealand	Private Company	Ltd	Similar to UK Ltd
Netherlands	Private Company	B.V.	Besloten Vennootschap (“Closed Company, Limited Liability”)
Belgium	Private Limited Company	BV / SPRL	BV = Besloten Vennootschap, SPRL = Société Privée à Responsabilité Limitée
Sweden	Private Limited Company	AB	Aktiebolag (“Stock Company / Limited Liability”)
Denmark	Private Limited Company	ApS	Anpartsselskab (“Limited Liability Company”)
Norway	Private Limited Company	AS	Aksjeselskap (“Limited Company”)
Finland	Private Limited Company	Oy	Osakeyhtiö (“Limited Company”)
Japan	Private Limited Company	KK	Kabushiki Kaisha (“Joint-Stock Company / Limited Liability”)
China	Private Limited Company	Ltd / 有限公司 (Youxian Gongsi)	Limited liability company
Russia	Private Limited Company	OOO (Общество с ограниченной ответственностью)	Limited liability company
South Korea	Private Limited Company	Ltd / 유한회사 (Yuhan Hoesa)	Limited liability company

---

LexFins 360 Insight:

“Understanding local corporate naming conventions is critical for cross-border compliance, legal contracts, and international business expansion. Each country has unique requirements for private companies, often reflected in their official suffix.”

LOANS UP TO 10 CRORE

 

Attention Entrepreneurs: Unlock Collateral-Free Loans up to ₹10 Crore!

The Government of India has just supercharged the CGTMSE scheme to make business funding more accessible, especially for small and medium enterprises like yours.

---

✅ What’s New in 2025?

🚀 Loan Limit Increased

Now you can get collateral-free credit up to ₹10 Crore (up from ₹5 Cr earlier)!

💸 Lower Guarantee Fees

New reduced annual fees for loans above ₹1 Cr:

• ₹5–₹8 Cr: 1.10%

• ₹8–₹10 Cr: 1.20%

👩‍💼 Extra Support for Women Entrepreneurs

If your business is women-led, you now get 90% guarantee cover (earlier 85%)—making loan approvals easier and less risky for banks.

---

📌 Who Can Apply?

• Startups, manufacturers, service providers & retailers

• Proprietorships, partnerships, LLPs, private limited companies

• New or existing businesses

If you have a solid business idea or expansion plan, you don't need to offer land or property as collateral.

---

🔑 How to Access These Benefits

1. Prepare a business plan and financials

2. Visit any bank or NBFC registered with CGTMSE

3. Apply for your loan under CGTMSE

4. The lender will seek a government-backed guarantee on your behalf

---

🤝 Need Help Navigating the Process?

We at LexFins 360 are here to:

• Structure your loan proposal professionally

• Connect you with CGTMSE-registered banks

• Ensure your documents are in place

• Provide post-loan compliance support

📩 partner@lexfins.com
🌐 www.lexfins.com