Income Tax Act 2025

 Yes. The old act is repealed and new Act is effective from 1 April 2025.

Particular	Income-tax Act, 1961	Income-tax Act, 2025
Effective period	Tax years beginning before 1 April 2026	Tax years beginning on/after 1 April 2026
Status	Repealed from 1 April 2026, subject to transitional provisions	Current law
Terminology	Previous Year + Assessment Year	Tax Year
Number of sections	819	536
Schedules	14	16
Drafting style	Numerous provisos, explanations and cross-references	More consolidated and structured
TDS provisions	Spread across Sections 192–194T	Mainly consolidated into Sections 392 and 393
Return filing provisions	Spread across different provisions	Section 263 consolidates original, belated, revised and updated returns
Forms	Large number of forms	Forms renumbered/restructured
Assessment terminology	Assessment Year (AY)	Tax Year (TY)
Accounting year	Financial Year / Previous Year	Financial Year continues; Tax Year is aligned with it
Basic tax framework	Existing framework	Broadly retained, with restructuring and simplification

Kerala Professional Tax

 

PROFESSIONAL TAX – KERALA

Professional Tax is a local statutory levy ( under Municipality Act/ Panchayat Raj Act) applicable in Kerala to persons engaged in employment, profession, trade or calling, subject to the applicable provisions and income/salary slabs.

For Company Owners

A company employing staff in Kerala should check its Professional Tax registration/enrolment and employee deduction requirements with the concerned Municipality, Corporation or Grama Panchayat.

• The number of employees does not by itself determine exemption from Professional Tax compliance.

• Where employees fall within the applicable taxable salary slab, the prescribed Professional Tax should generally be deducted from salary and remitted to the concerned local authority.

• Professional Tax is generally assessed on a half-yearly basis.

• The company should maintain appropriate records and complete the applicable payment and return/statement requirements.

• Certain categories of persons may be exempt under the applicable Kerala provisions.

Important: Professional Tax is separate from Income Tax, GST, EPF and ESI. Therefore, even a small company should verify its Professional Tax obligations based on its location, employees and nature of business.

As of FY 2026–27, Kerala Professional Tax is generally levied half-yearly, based on income for the six-month period. The current revised slabs came into effect from 1 October 2024. (Kerala State Archives Directorate)

Kerala Professional Tax – Current Rates

Half-yearly income	Professional Tax / half-year
Up to ₹11,999	Nil
₹12,000 – ₹17,999	₹120
₹18,000 – ₹29,999	₹180
₹30,000 – ₹44,999	₹300
₹45,000 – ₹59,999	₹450
₹60,000 – ₹74,999	₹600
₹75,000 – ₹99,999	₹750
₹1,00,000 – ₹1,24,999	₹1,000
₹1,25,000 and above	₹1,250

Thus, the maximum Professional Tax is ₹2,500 per year (₹1,250 × 2). (Kerala Finance)

For employees

The calculation is based on the employee's aggregate income for the relevant half-year, rather than simply applying a monthly rate. The two periods are generally:

• April–September

• October–March

The employer deducts the applicable amount from the employee and remits it to the relevant Municipality, Corporation or Grama Panchayat. The Kerala Municipality Act specifically provides for half-yearly assessment. (Kerala Government Department of Law)

Example: If an employee earns ₹25,000 per month consistently, half-year income is ₹1,50,000. The applicable Professional Tax is therefore ₹1,250 for that half-year, or ₹2,500 annually.

If you want, a one-page Kerala Professional Tax note for company owners, including who must register, whether a company with only 2 employees needs registration, exemptions, employer obligations and due dates, can be prepared.

Earlier online we could do. But in Kerala now website is not working. We have to do manually.

Contact 8848853865 for all support on professional tax.

Fund of Funds for Startups

Fund of Funds for Startups: How India Used Government Capital to Unlock Private Investment

A ₹10,000 Crore Experiment That Changed the Way Startups Are Funded in India

India's startup ecosystem has undergone a remarkable transformation over the past decade. One of the important policy interventions behind this transformation has been the Fund of Funds for Startups (FFS), established by the Government of India under the Startup India initiative and managed by the Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) on behalf of the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT).

The fundamental idea behind FFS was simple but powerful: the Government would not invest directly in individual startups. Instead, it would invest in professional venture capital funds and AIFs, which would then invest in startups.

This created a multiplier effect for public capital.

The ₹10,000 Crore Model

The Government announced a ₹10,000 crore corpus for the Fund of Funds for Startups in 2016. The structure was deliberately designed as a fund-of-funds rather than a direct startup investment programme.

The capital flow works broadly as follows:

Government of India / DPIIT
↓
SIDBI – Fund of Funds
↓
SEBI-registered AIFs / Venture Capital Funds
↓
Startups

The Government therefore leverages the investment expertise, networks and due-diligence capabilities of professional fund managers rather than attempting to select individual startups itself. Startup India describes the FFS as a mechanism through which SIDBI provides capital to VC funds/AIFs, which then invest in startups. (Startup India)

The Numbers Tell the Story

The programme has grown substantially beyond its initial stages.

According to the latest figures published through the Government's Startup India ecosystem reporting, as of June 2025, SIDBI had committed ₹11,958 crore to 155 AIFs under FFS.

Of this:

• ₹7,286.29 crore had been released by DPIIT to SIDBI.

• ₹6,221 crore had been disbursed by SIDBI to AIFs.

• These AIFs had catalysed investments of approximately ₹23,679 crore into 1,282 startups. (Startup India)

This is the critical feature of the model: government capital acts as catalytic capital rather than being the sole source of funding.

The objective is therefore not simply to spend ₹10,000 crore. It is to use public capital to attract significantly larger pools of private and institutional capital into India's startup ecosystem.

Why Does a Fund of Funds Matter?

A conventional government funding programme could invest directly into startups.

The FFS model takes a different approach.

Instead of asking:

“Which startup should the Government invest in?”

the model asks:

“Which professional investment funds should receive catalytic capital so that they can identify and invest in promising startups?”

This creates several advantages.

1. Professional Investment Management

AIFs and venture capital funds bring investment professionals, sector expertise, due diligence capabilities and networks to the process.

2. Capital Multiplication

Government capital can be combined with private capital raised by the underlying funds.

3. Portfolio Diversification

Rather than concentrating public money in a limited number of startups, the FoF model provides indirect exposure to a diversified portfolio through multiple funds and companies.

4. Development of the Venture Capital Industry

The model also helps strengthen the institutional venture capital ecosystem by providing capital to fund managers.

5. Government as a Catalyst

The Government does not need to become the principal decision-maker for every startup investment. Its role becomes that of a catalyst and ecosystem builder.

From Startup Funding to Economic Development

The significance of FFS goes beyond the ₹23,679 crore invested in startups.

The broader objective is to create an ecosystem in which startups can access:

• Equity capital

• Professional investors

• Mentoring

• Strategic networks

• Follow-on funding

• Market access

• Institutional governance

Successful startups can subsequently raise additional rounds from domestic and international investors, creating a larger economic impact from the initial government intervention.

In this sense, the real product of a Fund of Funds is not merely capital—it is an investment ecosystem.

India's Fund-of-Funds Approach Is Now Evolving

The Government has now taken the concept further.

In April 2026, the Government notified the Startup India Fund of Funds 2.0, again with a ₹10,000 crore corpus. The new scheme is intended to mobilise venture capital for startups while placing greater emphasis on areas such as deep technology, smaller venture capital funds, innovative manufacturing and sector/stage-agnostic startups. (Startup India)

The new scheme specifically recognises that certain sectors require different forms of capital.

For example, deep-tech companies may require:

• Longer R&D cycles

• Larger amounts of capital

• Longer investment horizons

• Greater tolerance for technological risk

The 2.0 framework therefore provides for a more segmented approach, including support for deep-tech AIFs, smaller AIFs supporting early-growth companies and AIFs investing in technology-driven manufacturing. (Startup India)

The Bigger Lesson for States

Perhaps the most important lesson from India's FFS experience is that a government or development institution does not necessarily need to invest directly in every enterprise to create economic impact.

A properly designed Fund of Funds can become a capital multiplier.

This model has already attracted interest at the state level. SIDBI's reporting has highlighted initiatives such as the ₹100 crore Maharashtra Fund of Funds, intended to support Maharashtra-based startups. (SIDBI). The model can potentially be adapted to a state's own economic priorities.

For example, a state-focused FoF could establish investment themes around: Deep Tech | Manufacturing | Healthcare | Climate Tech | Logistics | Tourism | Agriculture | Digital Services | MSMEs

The state can then leverage professional fund managers to identify and invest in businesses within these strategic areas. 

AIF Category	Commitments (₹ cr)	Funds Raised (₹ cr)	Investments Made (₹ cr)	Key Focus Areas
Category I AIFs	1,05,249	58,772	50,530	Infrastructure, SME, Social Impact, VC Funds
Category II AIFs	12,74,300	4,44,122	4,12,628	Private Equity, Real Estate, Debt Funds
Category III AIFs	3,14,713	1,99,829	2,13,207	Hedge Funds, Complex Trading Strategies
Grand Total	16,94,262	7,02,723	6,76,365	Diversified Alternative Investments

Sources: Government of India / Startup India, SIDBI and DPIIT. Figures above are based on the latest official figures available in the cited government sources.

Auditor Appointment Key Points

First Auditor:-

After 14th July 2025, MCA has a bought a change in eform ADT 1.i.e. a coloumn was added to indicate the appointment of Auditor made within 30 days of incorporation*.  

If Auditor is not appointed by Board within 30 days of Incorporation, EGM can appoint the Auditor within 90 days of expiry of first 30 days after incorporation.

First Auditor will remain office till First AGM.

On AGM, he can be appointed for 5 years and each year thereafter no ratification is required.

Auditor needs to be a qualified professional with certificate of practice from ICAI

He can be auditor only in 20 companies except for small companies, One Person Companies (OPCs), Dormant Companies, Small Companies, Private Companies having a paid-up share capital of less than ₹100 crore

World’s most successful Startup Accelerator - Y Combinator USA

Y COMBINATOR

Y COMBINATOR is the world’s most successful startup accelerator, responsible for launching a massive digital empire valued at hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Founded in 2005 by Paul Graham, Jessica Livingston, Trevor Blackwell, and Robert Morris, YC pioneered the concept of a multi-company funding "batch". 

Today, the organization has backed massive tech giants like Airbnb, Stripe, Dropbox, Reddit, DoorDash, and Coinbase.

How the Program Works

YC runs intensive, three-month programs four times a year in San Francisco. 

Out of tens of thousands of applicants, only about 1% are accepted into each batch.

• The Funding: Accepted startups receive $500,000 in early-stage investment. This funding is structured using a standard agreement called a Simple Agreement for Future Equity, a legal document invented by YC to streamline early fundraising.
• The Routine: Founders work tirelessly to hit a single, primary metric: growth. They spend their days talking to users, building software, and attending weekly dinners featuring legendary tech speakers.
• Demo Day: The program concludes with Demo Day where founders pitch their accelerated businesses to an exclusive audience of global investors.

 

1. Corporate Structure Requirements (The Flip)

YC does not fund unstructured teams or arbitrary entity formats. To receive investment, a company must adapt to a strict corporate framework.

• Approved Jurisdictions: Startups must be incorporated in the United States (specifically a Delaware C-Corp), Canada, Singapore, or the  Cayman Islands.
• The "Delaware Flip": If an applicant is an international startup (e.g., based in India, Europe, or LatAm), they must legally restructure. The founders form a parent company in Delaware, which then swallows the original regional entity as a wholly-owned subsidiary.
• Intellectual Property (IP): All software, copyrights, patents, and brand assets previously owned by the founders or individual entities must be legally transferred and fully owned by the new parent corporate entity.

2. The Standard Investment Terms

Acceptance into a YC batch binds the company to a standard, non-negotiable financial deal structured via SAFEs 

• The $500,000 Deal: The investment is split into two distinct financial mechanisms:
• $125,000 SAFE: Converts directly into 7% of your company's equity at the time of calculation.
• $375,000 MFN SAFE: An uncapped safe containing a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause. This means it takes on the exact economic terms, valuation caps, or discount rates negotiated with the very first outside investors who fund the startup later.
• Participation Rights: The agreement guarantees YC a Pro Rata Side Letter right, allowing them to purchase additional stock in later funding rounds to maintain their ownership percentage.

3. Operations & Founders’ Requirements

The corporate governance expectations demand extreme focus and strict operational compliance.

• In-Person Attendance: Founders are required to secure their own valid visas (such as B-1 or ESTA) to physically live and work in San Francisco throughout the intensive 3-month cycle.
• No Business-to-Consumer (B2C) Legal Tools: When using automated platform tools like YC's Send a SAFE platform, founders legally warrant that they are not entering transactions with retail consumers. It is strictly restricted to Business-to-Business (B2B) corporate operations.
• Age & Representation: All signees executing agreements must be at least 18 years of age and hold explicit corporate resolution rights to legally bind their respective business entities.

4. Fundraising "Handshake Protocol"

When dealing with investors on Demo Day or during the batch, YC enforces a strict Handshake Deal Protocol to legally protect founders:

• Binding Verbal Commitments: A legal verbal commitment is established the second an investor says "I'm in," the startup transmits a confirmation text/email stating the amount and valuation cap, and the investor replies with a "Yes".
• No Added Conditions: Once a handshake agreement is locked under this protocol, investors are prohibited from adding retrospective contingencies or closing conditions to the deal.

---

The legal foundation of Y Combinator is designed to create extreme fundraising speed while maintaining absolute uniformity. YC removes traditional legal friction by using non-negotiable standardized documents, requiring strict corporate entities, and enforcing clean intellectual property guidelines.

 

1. The Mandatory Corporate Entity: Delaware C-Corp

YC will not transfer its $500,000 investment into an LLC, a partnership, or a sole proprietorship.

• The Structural Standard: The startup must be or become a Delaware C-Corporation. Delaware is mandated because its Court of Chancery offers predictable corporate case law, and its structure easily allows the issuance of preferred stock to future venture capitalists.
• Stock Authorization: Upon incorporation, companies typically authorize 10,000,000 shares of common stock.
• Founders' Vesting Schedule: To protect the company if a founder quits early, YC requires all founder stock to be placed on a 4-year vesting schedule with a 1-year cliff. This means if a founder leaves before 12 months, they legally forfeit 100% of their equity.

2. Intellectual Property (IP) Cleanliness

A primary reason startups fail YC legal due diligence is "dirty" or fractured IP ownership.

• The Technology Assignment Agreement: Every single founder, early employee, and contractor must sign an explicit, airtight agreement transferring all past, present, and future IP, source code, and designs over to the Delaware C-Corp corporation.
• Prior Inventions: Founders must legally declare any prior inventions to ensure their previous employers or university labs cannot claim ownership over the startup's core product.

3. Deep Dive into the Post-Money SAFE

Invented by YC partner and lawyer Carolynn Levy in 2013, the Simple Agreement for Future Equity (SAFE) replaces expensive, slow convertible notes. Because it is not a debt instrument, a SAFE has no maturity date and accrues 0% interest.

4. The Pro Rata Side Letter

When signing a YC SAFE, investors often require an accompanying Pro Rata Side Letter.

• The Legal Right: This gives the investor the contractual right (but not the obligation) to purchase additional shares in the company’s Series A round.
• The Purpose: It allows early investors to prevent their ownership percentage from getting diluted when massive venture capital firms inject millions later on.

5. Post-Batch Standardized Documents

To keep startups moving fast after graduation, YC provides open-source, standardized templates for subsequent legal hurdles:

 For US Company Incorporation or Funding Assistance contact www.lexfins.com.

 

 

Share Transfer - Stamp duty in Kerala

 In Kerala, the stamp duty on transfer of shares of a private limited company through Form SH-4 (physical transfer) is:

• ₹0.25 for every ₹100 or part thereof of the value of shares transferred (i.e., 0.25%). This is prescribed under Article 62(a) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Legal Provision

Article 62(a), Schedule I, Indian Stamp Act, 1899

"Transfer (whether with or without consideration) of shares in an incorporated company or other body corporate" – Duty: 25 paise for every ₹100 or part thereof of the value of the shares.

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.