Rashmi Guptey
1st February 2022
Harish Talreja
25th January 2022
Sid Talwar
31st December 2021
Ankit Moorjani
30th June 2021
20th January 2024
Sandeep Murthy
17th March 2022
1st January 2020
20th November 2017
7th June 2022
15th May 2022
17th February 2022
28th November 2023
Prashant Mehta
2nd February 2022
22nd September 2021
30th August 2021
15th March 2022
21st January 2022
14th January 2022
5th November 2024
Monish Pathare
28th October 2024
4th October 2024
5th August 2024
20th October 2021
25th April 2021
Akshat Jain
12th February 2021
31st May 2020
Tanya Rohatgi
19th August 2024
20th June 2024
Siddhant Ahuja
25th April 2022
14th February 2022
2nd June 2018
5th June 2024
15th February 2024
9th February 2024
26th May 2022
1st February 2024
20th November 2020
Shivani Daiya
20th February 2020
17th August 2014
17th October 2024
18th July 2019
17th September 2021
15th September 2021
Maansi Vohra
28th January 2021
Atharva Purandare
10th January 2021
Tanvi Ghate
23rd January 2024
Ahan Rajgor
12th May 2022
8th March 2022
22nd February 2022
22nd August 2024
29th July 2024
5th June 2022
5th May 2022
16th April 2021
15th November 2014
25th October 2021
8th March 2020
7th August 2018
27th December 2016
17th February 2021
29th September 2020
24th September 2020
26th July 2020
20th January 2020
15th October 2018
26th June 2018
13th June 2017
21st May 2024
13th February 2024
15th July 2024
10th April 2024
20th February 2024
15th November 2024
One of the most bizarre tax provisions in recent times, 'angel tax' has been causing extreme heartburn and confusion within the startup community. And while the procedural change with the January 2019 notification is welcome, what needs to change are the rampant tax notices and coercive action against genuine startups who already run very boot-strapped operations.
The angels descended gracefully to bless with capital but the tax demons were faster and the political motivation possibly even faster! As the battles get fierce, the only ones to suffer are the talented entrepreneurs who dared start a company.
As dramatic as it may sound, ‘angel tax’ is one of the most bizarre tax provisions in recent times, causing extreme heartburn amongst startups. It treats capital raised by private unlisted companies—which includes startups—as “income from other sources” and levies an income tax of 30.9 percent on the amount considered above “fair value” i.e. it taxes the premium over fair value as if it were ordinary income when it is, in fact, an ‘equity infusion’ or a ‘capital transaction’.
As a first, Indian regulators took way too long to catch up with the startup ecosystem, leave alone regulate it. With billions of dollars already pumped in by 2016, the Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion, and the government in general, were fashionably late in recognising startups. FDI inflows were at $55.6 billion for the year ending March 2016.
The definition of the term ‘startup’ was first introduced in India at the beginning of 2016, under the Startup India Action Plan. Until then, there was neither any formal recognition nor any tax sops for startups. In May 2017, tax exemptions for startups were first notified, that too for startups incorporated only after April 2016 provided they met certain key conditions including an inter-ministerial application.
This meant all startups incorporated prior to 2016 that had come off financial maturity by 2016 were simply excluded from any tax incentives! If we were to trace the origin of the income tax provisions pertaining to the angel tax; the subsequent DIPP notifications between 2017 and 2018; compare the intent of the law to the vigour with which the tax department issued notices in 2018, contradicting a perfectly benign regulatory framework; it leaves the startup community utterly confused and apprehensive. They probably fell prey to being called a startup in the first place.
What The January 2019 Notification Means for Startups
On the procedural front, what is commendable is that the DIPP has paid heed to the representations by startups on the tax demands and harassment they have faced. Effective the date of this notification, applications of recognised startups will receive a tax exemption under Section 56(2)(vii b). This shall be transmitted by DIPP to the Central Board of Direct Taxes with the necessary documents, rather than by the startup itself.
One could argue it is now essentially an inter-departmental game because the final decision of whether to grant the exemption or not rests with the CBDT.
However; it will certainly have greater persuasive power when transmitted through DIPP and supported by the appropriate documentation.
The process should certainly curb tax harassment by the CBDT in cases where recognition exists. It would also have been good if this new application procedure had been extended to all startups. For instance, startups for which assessment orders have already been passed by assessing officers for the relevant financial year are not eligible to apply for this tax exemption according to the notification.
The procedural change with the latest notification is welcome. However what needs to change are the rampant tax notices, and coercive action against genuine startups who already run very boot-strapped operations.
Why This Hurts So Much
Tax demand notices of 30 percent on the capital premium, added to the incomes of operationally loss-making startups, can be an extremely high amount, depending on the quantum of capital raised.
Startups run on a very thin profit margin, if at all. Such tax demands wipe away their business models.
Relative to the financing raised by the startups, the addition of capital premium to their income and the threat of tax outflow of such high magnitude throws all business assumptions off gear!
The premiums commanded by these businesses are based on future projections of possible outcomes of their business. Tax officials seem to be assessing the value of the startups based on their net asset value at a certain point in time. Several startups find it difficult to justify the higher valuation to tax officials, in which case they are acted against as “sham” or “bogus entities”. Tax officials do not seem to recognise that while not all startups succeed, some execute extremely well. In that case, the valuation attributable as of the date of tax notices would possibly be even higher than the valuation commanded at the point of investment.
As the cost of litigation in defending notices is very high, it adversely affects startups' cash flow. Show cause notices under Section 179 and/or prosecution of directors under the Income Tax Act also endangers entrepreneurs' personal wealth. This is extremely demotivating and distracting for genuine founders that have pledged their personal wealth to run bootstrap businesses.
Let us hope that after the January 2019 notification, this unfortunate practice of taxing sound young companies which have bright dreams for India's future is nipped in the bud. Hopefully, Budget 2019 clarifies some of these issues, if not resolving them altogether, so that startups can do what they do best. Run their businesses rather than worrying about tax notices!
This article first appeared in BloombergQuint.
Uber, the popular Bangalore based cap operator was asked to change its payment mechanism by the Reserve Bank of India. Popular ecommerce sites like Myntra, Urban Ladder, Flipkart, and many other have been under the scanner for various regulatory matters like FDI violation, VAT related issues, Enforcement Directorate probes for maters before April 2013, Payment mechanism violations etc. With each passing day new violations or potential violations seem to be added.
The Indian Startup ecosystem has attracted over USD 5.5 Bn of PE/VC in 2015 alone and is the third largest Startup base worldwide. It’s heartening to see the Government take notice and launch the “Startup India Standup India” initiative.
You will receive the next newsletter in your inbox.
The monthly Gazette is your source of happenings within Lightbox - updates, blogs, deep dives, opinion pieces and all things consumer tech
Join the thousands who hear from us