&w=3840&q=100)
IVCA asks VCFs to act on Sebi circular, migrate to AIF regime by July 19
The Indian Venture and Alternate Capital Association (IVCA) has asked all Venture Capital Funds (VCFs) operating under the repealed Sebi (Venture Capital Funds) Regulations, 1996, to take note of migration rules introduced via Sebi's circular dated August 19, 2024.
According the Sebi directive, VCFs with schemes whose liquidation period has not expired and VCFs with at least one scheme whose liquidation period has expired, but not wound up and continues to hold unliquidated investments, now have the option to migrate into the Alternative Investment Fund (AIF) regime under a newly introduced sub-category: Migrated Venture Capital Funds (MVCFs). The deadline for submitting applications for this is July 19, 2025.
Rajat Tandon, president of IVCA, said, 'This is a critical regulatory window for legacy VCFs to realign with the current AIF framework. The migration framework introduced by Sebi not only offers operational clarity but also provides a structured path for managing residual assets and ensuring regulatory compliance. We urge all concerned VCFs to evaluate this option without delay. IVCA will continue to be the bridge between our members and Sebi, ensuring all necessary support is available throughout the migration process.'
Despite the regulatory clarity and incentives provided under this framework, including a simplified re-registration process, fee waivers, and tailored compliance requirements, the response to the said scheme has been tepid, which is a cause for concern.
IVCA has urged all legacy VCFs, especially those who are holding residual assets, to immediately evaluate their eligibility and apply to Sebi for migration before the due date. VCFs requiring support or clarification may reach out to IVCA or directly contact Sebi at the earliest. Those VCFs who have wound up all schemes or schemes where no investment has been made are further urged to surrender their registration to Sebi.
This transition is aimed at creating a more consistent and robust framework for fund governance, investor protection, and asset resolution. IVCA remains committed to supporting its members and the broader ecosystem during this important phase.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Sebi introduces new guidelines for MF nomination process: What investors need to know
To simplify and safeguard the nomination process in a mutual fund, markets regulator Sebi has come up with more operational guidelines. The move will lead to certain changes in the coming months. WHAT IS NOMINATION IN A MUTUAL FUND? WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? Nomination is the process of appointing a person to take care of your assets in the event of your death. Regulatory guidelines make it mandatory for new folios/accounts opened by an individual in a single name to make a nomination. In case investors do not wish to nominate, they need to confirm the same in the application form. Nomination makes transmission easy for the heirs in the event of the unitholder's death. However, in the absence of a nominee, the heirs/claimants will have to produce a host of documents like a will, legal heir certificate, no-objection certificate from other legal heirs etc., to get the units transferred in his/her name WHAT ADDITIONAL THINGS DOES ONE HAVE TO MENTION IN THE NEW NOMINATION FORMS THAT WILL BE IN EFFECT FROM JUNE 1? Best MF to invest Looking for the best mutual funds to invest? Here are our recommendations. View Details » by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Air conditioners without external unit. (click to see prices) Air Condition | Search Ads Search Now Undo Starting June, a new format of the nomination form must be used. This new format is available on all mutual fund house websites, mutual fund registrar websites and that of Association of Mutual Funds of India (AMFI). As per the new rules, investors will have to provide the nominee's full name, relationship with investor, percentage of share, address, email ID, mobile number. In addition to the above they have to provide one of the following identity details, namely PAN, driving licence, last 4 digits of Aadhaar or passport number. If the details are incomplete there could be delays or rejections due to NIGO—not in good order—and the form could be rejected. Investors have to merely provide these details in the form and no proof of any documents is required while making these nominations. Investors can also opt out of the nomination by using the relevant form and there is no change in that form. In addition, an investor can also authorise one of the nominees to operate the account on his behalf, in case of incapacitation, and authorise the nominee to encash his assets up to a specified percentage from this account or folio. DO EXISTING INVESTORS IN MUTUAL FUND SCHEMES HAVE TO DO ANYTHING NOW? It is not mandatory for existing mutual fund investors, who have a nomination in their folios, to make any changes now Live Events HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN YOU NOMINATE? You can add 3 nominees up to August 31, 2025. And from September 1, 2025 you can add up to 10 nominees in a folio. HOW CAN YOU MAKE A NOMINATION IN YOUR MUTUAL FUND FOLIO? Completion of the nomination is simple and can be done online through RTA (registrar and transfer agent) websites or fund house websites. For those not keen to do it online, one can use a relevant physical form, sign it and send it to the fund house. In case the mobile numbers or email IDs of the second holder are not updated with the fund house, the online process will not work and investors may have to do it by filling a form only.
Mint
3 hours ago
- Mint
New funds surge in GIFT City, but old money stays offshore
Moneybags from Mauritius, Singapore and Cayman Islands are yet to make the move to Gujarat's GIFT City given burdensome tax and compliance rules without commensurate benefits, industry executives said. While GIFT City has seen a steady rise in new funds, it has struggled to lure funds out of established offshore centres. As of March, India's financial centre had 229 funds, as per IFSCA quarterly bulletin. However, according to an official aware of the matter, a mere 13 of them, including Alchemy India Long Term Fund, Mirae Asset India Midcap Equity Fund and Artha Global Opportunities Fund have actually migrated from foreign jurisdictions. Among the reasons: Mandatory physical presence of employees, stiff compliance rules, and no added advantage for older close-ended funds making the shift. Local staff Every non-retail fund management entity in GIFT IFSC is required to have at least two individuals physically present—specifically, a principal officer and a compliance officer for managing Category I, II, and III alternative investment funds. (Retail funds must have at least three) Also, if the entity manages assets of $1 billion or more, it should appoint a third person. This is not the case in offshore financial centres, said Vinod Joseph, a partner at Economic Laws Practice. Mauritius allows funds to be set up in the form of companies and the directors of such companies are provided by local administrators, Joseph said. 'Such directors may also serve as directors for other companies, meeting regulatory requirements without needing a dedicated local team." Also read | Low-ticket Gift City funds are almost here. But what holds them back? Singapore does require full-time employees for fund management firms, but it is relatively easier to hire such personnel in Singapore and the people need to be employed locally only if assets exceed a certain size, Joseph added. 'In the case of an existing fund, the actual fund management team is often based outside India. Expecting them to relocate to GIFT IFSC solely to meet substance requirements is not easy," he added. Tax 'For certain sets of funds (Cat-I /II AIF), the fund will withhold tax and the same is available as credit in the hands of the investor, as GIFT funds are tax-transparent. This may not be the case for a Cat-III AIF and credit to the investors will be subject to their local laws," said Vivek Mimani, Partner at Khaitan & Co. 'In contrast, jurisdictions like Mauritius do not require investors to register for tax in India, as the fund itself pays tax and further distributions are tax-free," he said. An executive at a fund which recently relocated to GIFT IFSC said that even as the Indian jurisdiction is evolving and trying to align with international jurisdictions, layers of complexity remain. Artha Global Opportunities Fund, a Mauritius-headquartered and Sebi-registered fund investing in distressed assets and special situations in India said in December that it was the first foreign portfolio investor to move its domicile from Mauritius to GIFT City. Read this | Gift City sovereign green bonds face currency hurdle 'Once a fund relocates to GIFT City, it becomes subject to various domestic compliance obligations—GST registration, TDS, income tax filings, and more," said Sachin Sawrikar, managing partner, Artha Bharat Investment Managers IFSC LLP. 'For a fund which neither provides services nor sells products and typically earns passive income, the requirement to file monthly GST returns is particularly misaligned and burdensome," Sawrikar said. Sawrikar added that payments to foreign vendors, which would typically be tax-free elsewhere, attract withholding tax at GIFT City under India's Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions. 'These additional taxes and compliance costs increase operational burden," Sawrikar added. Relocation is not for everyone For close-ended funds with a limited remaining duration—say, a 10-year fund in Mauritius that has already completed five–seven years—relocating to GIFT City often does not make financial sense. That is because the costs and efforts involved may outweigh the benefits, a person aware of the matter said. 'Relocation is also a time-consuming process that requires approvals from investors in the fund, regulators in the home jurisdiction, and the authorities at GIFT. As a result, many fund managers prefer to let existing funds run their course in their current jurisdiction and instead consider setting up new funds in GIFT City," the person said on the condition of anonymity. Also read | GIFT City isn't just for NRIs and foreigner investors—it has something for everyone Usually, one would not rock the boat if it is sailing right; only a few are willing to take that step, said Ketaki Mehta, a partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. She added that relocation requires setting up in GIFT IFSC, hiring an investment manager in GIFT City, building a team, and winding up elsewhere. What's ahead? Experts said the government has relaxed certain regulations to lure more funds to the GIFT City. 'Initially, all investors in a fund when the fund was relocating to GIFT IFSC were required to obtain a PAN. However, not every investor was comfortable with it, and recognizing that many of these investors had no other taxable income in India and were tax residents in other jurisdictions, the government relaxed the rule," said Ketaki. Now, non-resident investors who invest solely through IFSC funds and do not earn any other income in India are exempt from obtaining a PAN. 'This change, implemented in 2020, was aimed at streamlining processes and making it easier for foreign investors to participate in IFSC without facing redundant compliance obligations," she added. And read | Mauritius keen to set up shop in GIFT City
Hindustan Times
3 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Right to privacy not absolute: HC backsnight ban on gaming
The Madras high court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of Tamil Nadu's online gaming regulations, which include Aadhaar-based verification, a midnight-to-5am gaming ban, and prohibition of minors from participating, dismissing petitions by gaming companies and ruling that the right to privacy is not absolute when weighed against public health concerns. A division bench of justices SM Subramaniam and K Rajasekar said the Tamil Nadu Online Gaming Authority (Real Money Games) Regulations, 2025, were reasonable restrictions aimed at curbing gaming addiction. The ruling reinforces state authority to regulate online gaming and could set a precedent for other states grappling with potential addiction and negative social consequences associated with real money games. The court held that the state was well within its legislative competence to enact the law in the interest of public health, public order, and regulation of trade and commerce. 'More often than not, the first right that is pleaded for in cases such as this is the right to privacy as upheld by the Supreme Court in Puttaswamy case (2017). But it must be essentially understood that the Puttaswamy case did not affirm the right to privacy as an absolute right,' the bench said. It added: 'The character of the right was transformed into a fundamental right thereby immediately bringing within its fold the reasonable restrictions that are available to all other fundamental rights. So the right to privacy carries with it, its own limitations and cannot be claimed in absolute. When put on a scale, a compelling public interest outweighs the right to privacy.' Gaming platforms including Play Games 24x7, Head Digital Works, and Junglee Games India had opposed the mandatory Aadhar verification raising concerns about privacy and questioning if the State's verification methods were compliant with adequate standards of privacy and security. They also contended online skill games were already governed under central law and that Tamil Nadu's regulations amounted to indirect prohibition of legitimate activity. Senior counsels Mukul Rohatgi and Sajjan Poovayya, representing the petitioners, contended that the state law conflicted with the Information Technology Act and intruded into the Centre's domain. The Union government through the Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan, had argued that the central Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 already governed online gaming. It said that the central framework provides for a self sufficient regulation for the online real money games including the standards of due diligence, grievance redressal mechanisms, and age-appropriate access, etc, all of which were intended to provide a harmonised national framework for online real money games of skill. The court rejected these submissions, invoking the doctrine of pith and substance to conclude that the legislation's core objective was 'public health,' placing it within the state's domain. 'In true essence, the Online Real Money Games is a trade activity, which if left unregulated has immediate implications on the health of the public. So, the fundamental purpose of this piece of legislation is to protect public health and regulate trade within the State, which squarely falls within the legislative competence of the State,' the judgment stated. Citing expert committee findings, the court noted at least 47 suicides between 2019 and 2024 linked to online real money gaming addiction. The court observed that night hours saw higher addiction levels, with research showing increased dopamine levels and diminished self-control during that time, justifying the midnight-to-dawn ban. On Aadhaar-based verification, the bench noted such verification was a robust two-step authentication process aimed at confirming age and identity to prevent misuse. 'The scope for manipulation is comparatively lesser,' the court held. The bench said that while real money games like rummy and poker may involve skill, their digital format poses distinct risks, including anonymity, lack of physical cues, and higher potential for addiction. 'The players may not even know against whom the game is played. So it is imperative that the government take adequate steps to streamline and regulate these unexplored waters to ensure fair play and secure the physical and financial safety of the players,' the court noted. On concerns that the law was paternalistic, the court held that protecting public health and well-being is a constitutional responsibility. 'Laws and policies must be shaped with that goal at the core,' it said. The court concluded that the 2025 Regulations were a necessary response to a growing public health crisis and aligned with Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandates the State to frame laws that protect people's welfare.
