Railways approves Rs 163 Crore Electric Traction Upgradation in South Central Railway (See 'Corp Brief') Govt promotes indigenous Potash Production and Alternative Nutrient Sources (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Personal guarantee expressly drafted as a continuing and irrevocable guarantee does not stand discharged merely because the guarantor resigns as director of the corporate debtor: NCLAT (See 'Legal Desk') CCI approves amalgamation of Go Digit Infoworks with Go Digit General Insurance (See 'Corp Brief') CCI okays acquisition of units of Oaktree capital group by Brookfield Asset Management (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - If IRP is allowed to perform only limited functions during period when CIRP is under substantial judicial restriction, IRP is not automatically entitled to full professional fees at minimum monthly rate: NCLAT (See 'Legal Desk') Amritsar becomes second spoke airport under India's International Aviation Hub Strategy (See 'Corp Brief') RRBs post Highest-Ever Net Profit of Rs. 10,177 Crore in FY 2025-26 (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - Retention or continued freezing of a person's property cannot be permitted solely or primarily on ground that investigation is ongoing: SAFEMA TRIBUNAL (See 'Legal Desk') NHAI Successfully defends Major Arbitration Case to Safeguard Public Funds (See 'Corp Brief') Companies Act - Coal beneficiation cannot per se be excluded from ambit of manufacturing process to justify quashing of criminal complaint at preliminary stage: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Digital India BHASHINI conducts Multilingual AI Workshop for Haryana Vidhan Sabha (See 'Corp Brief') MISC - RBI, possessing superior expertise in financial administration over cooperative authorities, has independent power to supersede board of a cooperative bank under the Banking Regulation Act - Principles of natural justice do not apply to Section 36AAA of Banking Regulation Act 1949: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Youth Unrest & CJP Agitation: Key Learnings (See CORP EINSICHT) IPR - Patent offices cannot rely on mere hypotheses or hindsight to dismiss technical advancement: HC (See 'Legal Desk') 'Corporate Mitra Scheme' Awareness Webinar Successfully Organized by IICA Shillong (See 'Corp Brief') Rajya Sabha organises Orientation Programme for newly elected Members (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Service of insolvency petition on corporate debtor's registered email address available in MCA records constitutes valid service, if accompanied by attempts at service at registered office and publication in accordance with NCLT Rules: NCLAT (See 'Legal Desk') Coast Guard rescues 170 Persons in Flood Relief Operations across Daman, Dadra & Nagar Haveli (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Prior or parallel proceedings under SARFAESI and before DRT do not bar Section 95 insolvency application: NCLT (See 'Legal Desk') Public Advisory: Beware of Fraudulent Air Suvidha 2.0 Websites (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Liquidation application allowed where corporate debtor is not a going concern, has prima facie nil asset value & where requirements of Section 33 of IBC 2016 are met: NCLT (See 'Legal Desk')

Significant Beneficial Ownership - A Step in the Right Direction?

Published: Jun 07, 2021

By Shankar Iyer, Direct Tax Leader, DAA Consulting

BENEFICIAL ownership implies ownership that ultimately enjoys the income from the asset and also controls the asset itself. In 2019, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ('MCA') - the Indian corporate law authority - notified the rules ('Rules') for determining significant beneficial ownership/owner ('SBO') in Indian companies. Though the concept of beneficial ownership has existed in Indian corporate law for decades, it was essentially based on suo moto disclosure by registered shareholder that the beneficial interest in those shares was in fact held by someone else, i.e., other than the registered shareholder. Rules take this concept further and cast a requirement on companies to identify the SBO.

Rules prescribe that SBO in relation to a reporting company (RCo ), means an individual who (either on his own or together with other person(s)) possesses indirectly or together with direct holdings , at least ten per cent of shares, voting rights thereof, right to receive at least ten per cent of distributable dividend or right to exercise significant influence or control. Indirect holding of right or entitlement is crucial for determining SBO and without any indirect holding there is no SBO.

Indirect holding in RCo is contemplated in more ways than one mentioned in (i) to (iv). Direct holding in RCo, contemplated in (v), is optional and only in addition to such indirect holding.

Every individual who acquires SBO in RCo is required to disclose the same in prescribed form and manner to RCo. Once RCo receives such declaration from such individual, it is required to file a return in prescribed form and manner with the Registrar of Companies.

The Rules now cast an obligation on the company to take necessary steps to find out who is the SBO. This becomes relevant when certain individuals (including shareholders) may be acting in concert or in a layered structure with multiple corporate shareholdings in the group shareholding structure. In cases involving a member (not being an individual) holding at least ten per cent shares or voting rights or right to receive dividend thereof, the company (RCo) shall issue notice to such member seeking details of the SBO.

Amongst other things, Rules do not apply to (a) body corporate controlled by Government and (b) SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India) registered investment vehicles such as alternative investment funds, mutual funds, real estate investment trusts and infrastructure investment trusts.

Key issues

The Rules have moved the concept of beneficial ownership from being merely based on disclosure by concerned individual shareholder to ensuring the company takes necessary steps to identify SBO. However, in cases where individuals (including the shareholder member) are acting in concert without knowledge of the company i.e., they may not have made any specific disclosure of beneficial ownership/SBO, identifying SBO may be difficult. In such a specific situation, Rules do not prescribe any steps and it is yet to be seen what measures would the company take in order to identify SBO. Further ahead, in case the individuals are relatives, whether their shares would need to be clubbed to test for SBO is unclear. The exercise of significant influence (represented in (i) of above picture) becomes relevant here to determine SBO. What would constitute participation in financial and operating policy decisions of the company is not defined in Rules.

Certain shareholder categories such as private equity investors (not registered with SEBI nor regulated by RBI) often appoint their respective nominees on the board of directors of target companies acquired by them. They also have affirmative voting rights on matters of importance as defined in shareholders' agreement. How and to what extent would Rules for SBO apply to private equity structures is unclear.

Similarly, in a layered structure, the immediate member of the reporting company, holding at least ten percent thereof, is also a corporate entity which in turn is majorly held by another corporate entity and finally an individual holds majority in ultimate holding company in the chain. In this situation, such individual may need to be disclosed as SBO by the company although the effective proportionate share of such individual in reporting company may be well below the stated threshold of ten per cent.

Way forward

The Rules for determining SBO are certainly a step in the right direction to identify real owners of a company. While beneficial ownership was based on disclosure by shareholders, SBO is a step further and requires company to identify its SBO, especially in a layered structure. In case the company fails to take prescribed steps to identify SBO, it shall be punishable with a fine ranging from approx. USD 14,000 to approx. USD 70,000 and additional penalty for continuing offence. The challenges highlighted above, if clarified, would result in seamless implementation of the SBO governance norms and also ensure that the overburdened company courts are spared of frivolous litigation.

Shankar Iyer (Author) is a Chartered Accountant and a Direct tax professional with more than 13 years of consulting experience in the taxation and regulatory field, namely, corporate taxation, international taxation and mergers & acquisitions taxation and regulatory aspects. He specializes in Business advisory, Corporate taxation and regulatory (FEMA, SEBI, CCI) matters, Direct tax due diligences, Endowment planning, Profit repatriation / cash repatriation strategies and Streamlining Group structures.

TIOL CORP SEARCH

TIOL GROUP WEBSITES