Foreign Investment Into India: Entry Routes, Sectoral Caps and the Compliance Architecture Under FEMA

By Subhradip Roy, Partner, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors and Souvik Bose, Associate, S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors

Published 30 October 2026 · Law stated as on 29 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer

Every foreign investment into an Indian company runs through the same regulatory architecture, whichever sector it lands in: a choice of entry route, a sectoral cap, a pricing rule, a reporting obligation on the RBI's FIRMS portal, and the possibility that something will have to be corrected later through compounding. This article sets out that architecture as it stands today, including the 2025-2026 changes to the insurance cap, Press Note 3 and the compounding rules, and the disputes that most often grow out of it.

The two gates: automatic route and government route

Every rupee of foreign equity that enters an Indian company arrives through one of two gates. Under the automatic route, the Indian company issues or transfers capital instruments to the non-resident investor and simply reports the transaction to the Reserve Bank afterward, through an authorised dealer bank, with no prior government clearance needed. Under the government route, the proposal must first be cleared by the ministry or department administratively concerned with the sector, acting as the competent authority, before the money can come in and the shares can be allotted.

Which gate applies depends on the sector, not on the investor or the amount. The Consolidated FDI Policy Circular, issued by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, and the FEMA (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 notified under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 by the Department of Economic Affairs, set out a schedule of sectors and the entry condition that applies to each. Most manufacturing, most services and most of the digital economy sit entirely on the automatic route today. A smaller list, defence beyond a stated threshold, multi-brand retail trading, print media and news broadcasting, satellite and space activities beyond certain segments, and anything touching an investor connected to a country that shares a land border with India, sits wholly or partly on the government route.

The distinction is not cosmetic. An automatic-route investment that is treated, filed and reported correctly needs no approval at any stage; a government-route investment completed without approval is a contravention of the NDI Rules from the moment the shares are allotted, whatever the sectoral cap would otherwise have permitted. Getting the route right, before term sheets are signed and allotment dates are fixed, is therefore the first and most consequential classification exercise in any inbound investment, and it has to be revisited whenever the investor's own ownership changes, since a change upstream in the investor's beneficial ownership can convert what started as a straightforward automatic-route subscription into a government-route one.

Choosing the entry vehicle: subsidiary, joint venture company or LLP

A foreign investor putting money into an operating business in India generally chooses among three structures: a wholly owned subsidiary incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, a joint venture company in which an Indian partner also holds equity, or a limited liability partnership. Each carries consequences that go beyond governance.

Of the three, a wholly owned subsidiary is the simplest structure to operate for FDI purposes. There is no local partner's consent to manage, and every share issued to the foreign parent is a direct foreign investment governed in full by the entry route and sectoral cap applicable to that sector. A joint venture company brings different questions to the fore: the shareholders' agreement has to be built around the sectoral cap, since the foreign partner's stake cannot exceed it however the parties might prefer to structure their commercial bargain, and affirmative vote and board matters reserved to the foreign partner have to be drawn carefully enough that they do not, cumulatively, amount to the kind of control that converts the Indian company into a foreign-owned or controlled company for downstream-investment purposes, a point taken up later in this article.

The limited liability partnership route is narrower than either. Under the current rules, an LLP can accept foreign investment under the automatic route only if it operates in a sector or activity where 100% FDI is permitted under the automatic route and that permission carries no FDI-linked performance condition. An LLP in a sector subject to a cap below 100%, a sector with performance conditions attached even where the cap itself is 100%, such as many financial-services and infrastructure activities, or a sector still on the government route, cannot take foreign capital through the LLP form at all unless it is restructured. An LLP that does qualify, and that itself carries foreign investment, is then restricted on the other side too: it can make a downstream investment only into a company or another LLP that is itself in a sector with an unconditioned 100% automatic-route FDI permission. These restrictions make the LLP vehicle attractive for a narrow set of professional-services and uncapped manufacturing arrangements, and largely unworkable for financial services, real estate development, defence, insurance intermediation and most other conditioned sectors.

Not every foreign company wants to incorporate an Indian entity at all. One that needs only a presence in India to execute a specific contract, liaise with customers, or represent a parent's interests, uses a different route altogether, discussed next.

Branch, liaison and project offices: the authorised-dealer-bank route

Such a company applies, under the Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of a Branch Office or a Liaison Office or a Project Office or any Other Place of Business) Regulations, 2016, for permission to open a branch office, a liaison office or a project office instead of a subsidiary. These are not separate legal persons; they are extensions of the foreign parent, operating within India subject to the activities the Reserve Bank has permitted.

A liaison office may only act as a channel of communication between the foreign parent and parties in India. It cannot undertake any commercial, trading or industrial activity, cannot earn income in India, and must be funded entirely by inward remittances from the parent. A branch office, in contrast, can export and import goods, render professional or consultancy services, carry out research work, and represent the parent for buying or selling purposes, but cannot carry on retail trading or manufacturing activities on its own account, and its income can be remitted out subject to the applicable tax deducted at source. A project office is sanctioned for the specific, time-bound purpose of executing a particular contract in India, typically one awarded by an Indian company or by a sovereign or multilateral agency, and closes once that contract is executed.

Applications are made in Form FNC to an authorised dealer Category-I bank under the Reserve Bank's Master Direction on the subject. Where the foreign company's principal business falls in a sector permitting 100% automatic-route FDI, the application is processed by the bank itself under the Reserve Bank Route; where the sector does not permit full automatic-route FDI, the application goes through the Government Route, meaning a reference to the Reserve Bank and, through it, to the government. An applicant connected to Pakistan or Bangladesh, or whose principal business is defence, telecommunication, private security or information and broadcasting, is referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs and sometimes the Ministry of Defence as well, regardless of the general sectoral cap, and these references routinely take considerably longer than the stated processing timelines suggest.

None of these offices is a vehicle for raising equity capital; they exist to carry on a defined, permitted activity, and converting one into an Indian subsidiary later, if the foreign parent decides the business should take that form, requires a fresh incorporation and a fresh capital-instrument issuance, not a conversion of the office itself.

Sectoral caps and the conditions that actually bind

The headline cap for a sector is only the starting point; the conditions attached to it usually matter more in practice. Defence manufacturing permits up to 74% under the automatic route, with anything beyond that requiring government approval and a demonstrated case for access to modern technology or other reasons recorded by the government; insurance, after the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025, popularly described by the government as the 'Sabka Bima Sabki Suraksha' reform, now permits foreign investment up to 100%, raised from the 74% ceiling that had applied since 2021, though the increase is tied by the Finance Minister's February 2025 budget announcement to a condition that the insurer invest the entire premium collected in India, with the precise manner and conditions to be prescribed by the central government; telecommunication services have stood at 100% under the automatic route since the Cabinet's telecom relief package of September 2021, which lifted the earlier 49% automatic ceiling entirely; pharmaceuticals permit 100% automatic-route investment into greenfield projects, but only up to 74% automatic-route investment into brownfield projects, meaning the acquisition of an existing licensed manufacturer, with the balance requiring government approval; and private sector banking has historically capped aggregate foreign shareholding, combining FDI with portfolio investment, at 74%, with only the first 49% available automatically and the remainder requiring government approval, a ceiling that has been the subject of periodic proposals to raise it that have not, as of this writing, been enacted.

Multi-brand retail trading remains capped at 51% and sits on the government route, with conditions including a minimum investment threshold, a requirement to source a proportion of manufactured and processed products from Indian micro and small industries, and restrictions on the locations in which multi-brand outlets may open; single-brand retail trading, by contrast, now permits 100% automatic-route investment, subject to a sourcing norm for products sold under the brand and relaxations for products involving advanced, cutting-edge technology, a distinction that continues to generate disputes over whether a particular retailer's model is correctly classified as single-brand at all. Print media carrying news and current affairs, and uplinking of news and current affairs television channels, remain capped at 26% and require government approval; non-news print media and most other broadcasting activities permit higher caps, several at 100% automatic.

Space activities were substantially liberalised by the space sector FDI policy notified in February 2024, which created separate caps, generally higher and more automatic, for satellite manufacturing and operation, launch vehicles and associated systems, and ground segment and user equipment, as against the government-route, more conservative treatment that continues to apply to activities closer to strategic or dual-use capability. A handful of activities, lottery business, gambling and betting, chit funds other than those run entirely by Non-Resident Indians on a non-repatriation basis, Nidhi companies, real estate business other than construction development, trading in transferable development rights, manufacture of cigars, cigarettes and tobacco substitutes, and atomic energy, remain closed to foreign investment altogether.

Because this matrix changes by notification, often several times a year, the correct practice is to verify the cap and condition applicable to a specific activity against the current Consolidated FDI Policy and the NDI Rules as amended on the date of the proposed transaction, not against any list, including this one, compiled even a few months earlier.

Press Note 3 of 2020 and the 2026 relaxation for land-border investment

Press Note 3 of 2020, issued by the DPIIT in April 2020 and given legal effect through an amendment to the NDI Rules, required prior government approval for any investment, direct or indirect, where the beneficial owner of the investment is situated in, or is a citizen of, a country that shares a land border with India, and for any transfer of ownership of an existing Indian investment that results in beneficial ownership shifting to such a person, whatever sector is involved and however small the stake. The seven countries sharing a land border with India are Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, Nepal, Myanmar, Bhutan and Afghanistan, though in practice the condition has been understood chiefly as a response to Chinese investment flows following the border tensions of mid-2020.

The rule applied without a sectoral exception and without a de minimis threshold, which meant that even a small, non-controlling secondary-market purchase by a fund with an upstream limited partner connected to one of these countries could technically require government clearance, a position that foreign portfolio investors and private equity funds with diversified limited partner bases complained made ordinary portfolio activity in Indian listed companies unworkable to monitor. The government publicly denied in mid-2025 that any amendment to this framework was under consideration.

That position changed in March 2026. The Union Cabinet approved, and the DPIIT subsequently notified, an amendment permitting investors with a non-controlling beneficial ownership of up to 10% linked to a land-border country to invest under the automatic route, subject to the sectoral cap and other conditions that would otherwise apply, and introducing a definition of beneficial ownership drawn from the Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, applied at the level of the individual investing entity. A separate, faster 60-day approval track was created for government-route proposals in specified critical manufacturing segments, including capital goods, electronic components, polysilicon and ingot-and-wafer manufacturing, where Indian residents or Indian-owned entities retain majority ownership and control of the investee. Official clarifications issued alongside the relaxation stated plainly that the 10% carve-out does not extend to an entity itself registered in a land-border country, including China or Hong Kong, or to an investment in which such an entity is itself the direct investor; the relief is confined to funds and holding structures where a land-border-linked beneficial owner sits below the 10% threshold inside an otherwise non-land-border investment vehicle. In parallel, the Ministry of Finance notified a further amendment to the NDI Rules in June 2026, replacing the earlier reference to 'Non-Resident Indian' and 'Overseas Citizen of India' investors in the relevant rule with the broader category of 'individual' resident outside India for the purposes of listed-company equity purchases, and extending the government-approval requirement for change of control or ownership of a listed Indian company to transfers in favour of entities and citizens of land-border countries specifically.

A separate September 2026 notification, reported but not yet confirmed against the Official Gazette at the time of writing, is said to permit foreign-invested e-commerce entities to adopt an inventory-based model, in which the entity itself holds stock, where the goods concerned are manufactured in India and sold exclusively for export; the long-standing restriction confining FDI-backed e-commerce platforms in India to the marketplace model, under which the platform may not own the inventory it lists, is reported to remain in force for domestic sales. Given the uncertainty over the Gazette reference for this specific change, any e-commerce structure intending to rely on it should have its FEMA counsel confirm the notification number and commencement date before proceeding.

Pricing and valuation: what the rules actually require

FEMA does not prescribe a single formula for pricing a foreign investment transaction; it prescribes a floor, and the floor differs by whether the Indian company is listed and by the nature of the instrument. For the issue of capital instruments by an unlisted Indian company to a person resident outside India, the price must not be less than the fair value worked out, at an arm's length basis, using any internationally accepted pricing methodology, a certificate for which is issued either by a Securities and Exchange Board of India registered Category I merchant banker or by a practising chartered accountant. In practice, this has settled around the discounted cash flow method for most operating companies and the net asset value method for asset-holding or investment companies, though the rule does not mandate either exclusively. For a listed company, the pricing is governed instead by the applicable Securities and Exchange Board of India regulations on preferential issues or open offers, as the case requires.

The same floor operates in reverse on a transfer. Where an existing shareholder, resident or non-resident, transfers capital instruments to a person resident outside India, the transfer price cannot be lower than the fair value so determined; where a non-resident transfers to a resident, the price cannot be higher than that fair value. The asymmetry is deliberate: it prevents a resident seller from shifting value into foreign hands below fair value, and prevents the reverse flow of value out of the country above fair value, whichever direction the transaction runs.

Instruments that convert later, compulsorily convertible debentures and compulsorily convertible preference shares most commonly, must have their conversion formula or conversion price fixed upfront, at the time of issue, and the instrument cannot convert at a price lower than the fair value determined as of the date of issue; a conversion mechanism that leaves the eventual price open to later negotiation, or that is linked to a variable the parties control, does not satisfy this requirement and risks recharacterising the instrument as debt for FEMA purposes, with different and generally stricter consequences. The rules also permit a limited deferral: up to 25% of the total consideration in a transfer from a resident to a non-resident may be paid on a deferred basis, or held in an escrow or indemnity arrangement for up to 18 months from the date of the transfer agreement, provided the arrangement as a whole still respects the pricing floor when measured against the full consideration eventually payable. This provision is frequently used to structure earn-outs and warranty holdbacks in acquisition agreements, and it is the one point in the pricing framework specifically built to accommodate ordinary M&A deal mechanics rather than a straightforward primary subscription.

Downstream investment, total foreign investment and the control test

An Indian company that itself carries foreign investment, and that in turn invests in another Indian company or LLP, is making a downstream investment, and Rule 23 of the NDI Rules treats that second-tier investment as indirect foreign investment in the ultimate investee, to be added to any direct foreign investment the investee also holds, for the purpose of checking the investee against its own sectoral cap. The calculation is not proportionate to how much of the intermediate company's capital is foreign; the rules instead ask a threshold question first, is the intermediate company foreign owned or controlled at all, and once that question is answered yes, the whole of its stake in the downstream entity counts as indirect foreign investment, not merely the foreign-owned fraction of it.

Whether an Indian company counts as foreign owned and controlled, for this purpose, turns on whether more than 50% of its capital instruments are beneficially owned by persons resident outside India on a fully diluted basis, or, even where foreign ownership is below that threshold, whether non-residents otherwise control it. 'Control', for a company, is defined, by an amendment that aligned the NDI Rules with the Companies Act, 2013 definition used elsewhere in Indian corporate and securities law, as the right to appoint a majority of directors or to control the management or policy decisions of the company, whether through shareholding, management rights, shareholders' agreements, voting agreements or in any other manner; for an LLP, the equivalent test asks whether a party has the right to appoint a majority of designated partners and whether those designated partners control all the policy decisions of the LLP to the exclusion of others. The alignment with the Companies Act definition was intended to produce a single, harmonised meaning of control across company law, securities law and FEMA, but the concept still turns heavily on fact-specific indicators, veto rights over budgets and key hires, affirmative-vote matters, board composition formulae and the practical ability to direct day-to-day operations, on which the statute and the regulations give comparatively little worked guidance compared with jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the European Union or Singapore, where control guidance for similar purposes is considerably more detailed.

This ambiguity is not academic. In the Future Retail-Amazon dispute, the Delhi High Court, in an order passed by a single judge on 21 December 2020 in the course of interim proceedings between the parties, observed on a prima facie basis that certain protective covenants Amazon held over Future Coupons Private Limited, which in turn held a minority stake in Future Retail Limited, read together, had transgressed from a protective right into a controlling right, and that such control over Future Retail, a multi-brand retail company in which direct foreign control is restricted, would require government approval that had not been obtained, rendering the structure contrary to the FDI policy and FEMA if the observation held on a final hearing. The observation was made at the interim stage, in aid of deciding an injunction, and does not represent a final adjudication of the point, but it illustrates how a layered investment structure built around affirmative and protective rights, common in private equity and strategic investment term sheets, can later be characterised by a court, a regulator or a disgruntled co-investor as impermissible control once a dispute arises, with consequences for the sectoral classification of every downstream entity in the chain.

Reporting on the FIRMS portal: FC-GPR, FC-TRS and Form DI

Every transaction that brings foreign capital into an Indian company, or transfers existing capital instruments between a resident and a non-resident, has to be reported to the Reserve Bank through the Foreign Investment Reporting and Management System, the FIRMS portal, within a fixed window measured from the transaction date, not from when the parties get around to filing.

Form FC-GPR reports the allotment of equity shares, compulsorily convertible debentures, compulsorily convertible preference shares or share warrants by an Indian company to a person resident outside India, and must be filed within 30 days of the date of allotment. Form FC-TRS reports a transfer of capital instruments between a resident and a non-resident, whether by sale or by gift, and must be filed within 60 days of the transfer or of the receipt or remittance of consideration, whichever is earlier; practically, this means the clock on an FC-TRS filing can start running before the share transfer itself is even registered in the company's records, if consideration moves first. Form DI reports the downstream investment made by an Indian entity that itself carries foreign investment into another Indian entity, and must be filed within 30 days of the allotment of capital instruments in the downstream investee.

A filing made after the relevant window has closed does not automatically become a contravention requiring compounding; the Reserve Bank permits a Late Submission Fee mechanism, set out in its circular of September 2022, under which a filing can still be accepted up to three years after the original due date on payment of a fee computed as a fixed amount plus a small percentage of the transaction value for each year, or part of a year rounded to the nearest month, of delay. Once the Reserve Bank issues a payment advice quantifying the fee, it must be paid within 30 days or the advice lapses and the filing reverts to being an unregularised delay. Beyond the three-year outer limit, or where the Late Submission Fee route is for any reason unavailable, the delay becomes a contravention to be regularised through compounding, discussed below. Since mid-2025 the portal has also permitted companies with multiple investors in a single allotment round to use a bulk CSV upload facility rather than filing a separate form for each investor, which has meaningfully reduced the administrative burden on rounds with several participating funds.

The government route in practice: FIFP and realistic timelines

Where government approval is required, the proposal is filed online through the Foreign Investment Facilitation Portal, maintained by the DPIIT, which routes it automatically to the ministry or department administratively concerned with the sector, described in the FDI policy as the competent authority for that sector. The competent authority is required to seek the views of the Reserve Bank and, in cases raising a security or strategic dimension, the Ministry of Home Affairs or Ministry of External Affairs, before taking a decision, and must record and communicate its decision to the applicant within a stated overall period from the date the application is filed.

The Standard Operating Procedure governing this process has been revised more than once, most recently, according to trade reports, in May 2026, when the DPIIT is said to have moved the overall disposal target from 10 weeks to 12 weeks while making the filing process entirely paperless, including digital upload of ownership, beneficial ownership, valuation and sanctions-related disclosures. Earlier versions of the Standard Operating Procedure, from November 2020 and August 2023, had already fixed a 12-week target measured from the date of online filing, a period that specifically excludes any time taken by the applicant to respond to queries or deficiencies the competent authority raises, meaning the clock effectively pauses every time the file goes back to the applicant. Applicants should expect the practical timeline, including the time taken to resolve queries, to run considerably longer than the headline figure in most proposals that raise a genuine security, land-border or sectoral-condition question, and in proposals referred to the Ministry of Home Affairs this is particularly true.

A rejection, or the imposition of additional conditions not sought by the applicant, requires the concurrence of the DPIIT before it can be communicated, which is intended as an internal check against inconsistent sectoral practice across different ministries, though it does not create any independent right of appeal for the applicant against an adverse decision; an applicant dissatisfied with a government-route rejection is generally left to represent the matter again to the same competent authority with additional information, or to challenge the decision in writ proceedings on administrative-law grounds, since the FDI policy itself does not provide a statutory appellate forum.

Compounding: the remedy once a contravention has already happened

Once the government-route or automatic-route question is settled correctly, the next risk is what happens if it was not: a breach of the entry route, the sectoral cap, the pricing norm or a reporting timeline is a contravention of the FEMA regime from the moment it occurs, whether or not anyone involved appreciated that at the time. The remedy Indian law provides for most such contraventions, once discovered, is compounding before the Reserve Bank, not litigation and not, ordinarily, a criminal prosecution.

The framework was substantially revised in 2024 and 2025. The Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2024, notified by the central government on 12 September 2024, replaced the Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2000 that had governed the process for nearly a quarter-century, and the Reserve Bank issued fresh directions under the new Rules on 1 October 2024. A further Master Direction, issued on 22 April 2025 and amended two days later, consolidated and in some respects relaxed the compounding framework again: it removed an earlier provision that increased the compounding amount by 50%, up to an overall cap of 300% of the sum involved, whenever an applicant reapplied for compounding of the same transaction without having paid an earlier compounding amount in full, and it empowered the compounding authority to cap the compounding amount at a flat Rs 2,00,000 per contravention for the residual category described as 'all other non-reporting contraventions', where the harm is essentially technical. Applications can be filed physically or through the PRAVAAH portal, with a prescribed fee, and contraventions falling under Section 3(a) of FEMA, which concerns dealing in or transferring foreign exchange without the general or special permission the Act requires, remain specifically excluded from compounding and have to be dealt with through the Enforcement Directorate's adjudication process instead.

Enforcement practice has given this incentive more teeth over the last two years: the push to compound promptly, rather than wait for a contravention to surface on a later audit, due diligence or regulatory inspection, has sharpened. In February 2025, the Enforcement Directorate imposed a penalty of approximately Rs 3.44 crore on BBC World Service (India) Pvt Ltd and separate penalties on three of its directors, on a finding that the company had retained 100% foreign ownership in a digital news business where foreign investment is capped at 26%, with a daily penalty running for every day the contravention continued after October 2021; separately, an adjudicating authority reportedly imposed a total penalty of Rs 184 crore on PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd and its director over foreign direct investment allegedly received by misrepresenting the company's business activity to bypass the applicable sectoral condition, together with further inward remittances treated as contraventions. The Enforcement Directorate's own director told reporters in May 2025 that FEMA violations in foreign direct investment would be a priority focus area for the agency through the year, and specifically encouraged entities with unregularised contraventions to apply for compounding rather than wait to be investigated. Against that backdrop, an investor or Indian company that discovers, on internal review, that a past round breached a sectoral condition, missed a reporting deadline beyond the Late Submission Fee window, or priced an issuance below the fair-value floor, is almost always better served applying for compounding at the earliest opportunity than leaving the position unregularised.

Repatriation of dividends and capital

FEMA divides every cross-border payment into a current account transaction or a capital account transaction, and the distinction decides how freely money can leave India once a foreign investment has been made. Dividends, interest, royalties, technical and management fees are current account transactions; they can be remitted without any prior Reserve Bank approval once the applicable withholding tax has been deducted and the paperwork, principally Form A2 declaring the purpose and amount of remittance, Form 15CA filed on the income-tax portal, Form 15CB certified by a chartered accountant confirming tax compliance, and the underlying board resolution or contract, is in order with the authorised dealer bank.

A dividend can only be remitted, of course, if it has been validly declared in the first place, which is a question of company law rather than foreign exchange law: Section 123 of the Companies Act, 2013 requires that a dividend be paid out of current-year profits or free reserves accumulated after providing for depreciation, and a dividend paid in contravention of that provision cannot be cured on the FEMA side merely because the remittance paperwork was in order. Dividend remittances to a non-resident shareholder are also subject to withholding tax, generally at 20% plus applicable surcharge and cess under the domestic rate presently in force, though this is frequently reduced under the tax treaty between India and the investor's country of residence, subject to the investor holding a valid Tax Residency Certificate and furnishing Form 10F.

Capital account transactions, the repatriation of proceeds on a share buyback, a capital reduction, a liquidation, or the sale of the investment itself, sit on stricter footing: they require that the underlying transaction itself be priced and structured consistently with the NDI Rules, and the outward transfer has to follow the ordinary FC-TRS reporting if the shares change hands between a resident and a non-resident, or a specific capital-account remittance process if the company is simply returning capital. The taxation of share buybacks has itself been unsettled through this period: the company-level buyback tax under Section 115QA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 applied until September 2024; from October 2024 until the end of March 2026, buyback proceeds were instead taxed in the hands of the shareholder as deemed dividend income at the shareholder's applicable slab rate, with no deduction allowed for the cost of the shares bought back; and the Finance Act, 2026 has moved the taxation of buybacks back toward a capital-gains basis from 1 April 2026, taxing the gain over cost rather than the full proceeds, though commentary on the exact current rates for listed and unlisted shares, and on an additional charge reportedly applicable to promoter shareholders specifically, has not been fully reconciled across sources at the time of writing and should be checked against the enacted provisions before a buyback is priced or structured.

Where the disputes actually arise

Disputes connected to foreign investment in India rarely take the form of a straightforward challenge to the FDI policy itself; they tend to surface inside some other proceeding, a joint venture breakdown, an arbitration enforcement application, or a regulatory adjudication, where a FEMA or FDI-policy argument is deployed as a weapon by one side.

The most frequent pattern is the control dispute between joint venture or strategic partners, of the kind seen in the Future Retail-Amazon litigation discussed earlier: a foreign investor negotiates protective and affirmative-vote rights intended to protect its investment, a dispute later arises for entirely separate commercial reasons, and the Indian partner, or a third party such as a competing acquirer or a trade body, then argues that those same protective rights amounted to impermissible control requiring government approval that was never obtained. Because the control test under the NDI Rules is fact-intensive and only lightly elaborated in the regulations themselves, this argument is available in almost any joint venture with a reasonably assertive foreign investor, which is itself a reason to document, at the time rights are negotiated, a considered position on why they are protective rather than controlling, rather than leaving that characterisation to be reconstructed years later under litigation pressure.

A second recurring pattern is the attempt to resist enforcement of a foreign arbitral award on the ground that the underlying transaction breached FEMA. Indian courts have been consistent, and increasingly firm, in rejecting this. In Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Limited, the Delhi High Court in 2017 held that a put option giving a foreign investor an assured, time-bound exit at a guaranteed internal rate of return, even if it arguably breached FEMA's pricing or structuring norms, did not offend the fundamental policy of Indian law for the purposes of resisting enforcement of the foreign award that upheld it, since FEMA is a regulatory statute concerned with managing foreign exchange rather than one whose every provision is so fundamental that its breach taints enforcement. The Supreme Court reinforced this position in Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL in February 2020, holding, in the context of a London-seated award that required a discounted share buyout the Indian party said breached pricing norms, that a curable FEMA contravention does not amount to a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law sufficient to refuse enforcement under Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and that the appropriate course for the Indian party, if a contravention genuinely occurred, was to apply for post-facto regularisation through compounding, not to resist enforcement of the award. Together these decisions mean that structuring an investment around an aggressive exit mechanism carries FEMA compliance risk that has to be managed on its own terms, through compounding if necessary, rather than a risk that can be relied on later to defeat the counterparty's contractual rights.

Beyond these contract-driven disputes sits a third pattern, illustrated by the Enforcement Directorate actions against BBC World Service (India) and PPK Newsclick Studio discussed above, is the straightforward regulatory adjudication, brought where a sectoral cap has allegedly been exceeded or an entry condition circumvented, sometimes years after the investment in question was made and often triggered by a change in the political or regulatory attention a particular sector or investor is receiving rather than by any complaint from a commercial counterparty. These cases underline that FEMA exposure on a foreign investment does not run out simply because the transaction closed without immediate challenge; the Enforcement Directorate's adjudication powers, and the daily-penalty mechanism that can apply to a continuing contravention, mean that an uncorrected structural breach keeps generating fresh exposure for as long as it continues.

A practical step-by-step for an inbound investment

The sequence that holds up best in practice begins well before any document is signed. First, classify the target activity, in NIC or FDI-policy terms, against the current Consolidated FDI Policy and NDI Rules, to establish the applicable cap, the entry route, and any sector-specific conditions such as minimum capitalisation, sourcing norms or lock-in periods; this classification should be revisited, not merely assumed, if the target company's activities span more than one FDI-policy category, since the more restrictive category generally governs.

Second, check the investor's own structure against Press Note 3: trace beneficial ownership up the investor's chain, applying the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules definition now built into the NDI Rules, to confirm whether any beneficial owner is situated in or a citizen of a land-border country, and if so, whether the March 2026 non-controlling 10% carve-out applies or whether government approval is instead required. This step has to be repeated for every closing in a multi-closing round, since a later investor joining the cap table can change the answer for the whole structure if aggregate land-border-linked beneficial ownership crosses the carve-out threshold.

Third, choose the entry vehicle, applying the LLP eligibility test if an LLP is under consideration, and settle the instrument, equity, compulsorily convertible preference shares or compulsorily convertible debentures, fixing any conversion formula at the outset. Fourth, obtain the fair-value certificate from a SEBI-registered Category I merchant banker or a chartered accountant before signing definitive documents, so that the agreed price can be tested against the pricing floor rather than discovered to be deficient after allotment. Fifth, if the government route applies, file through the FIFP well ahead of any contractually agreed long-stop date, and build the realistic 12-week-plus timeline, and the possibility of a security-related reference to the Ministry of Home Affairs, into the transaction timetable rather than into a template warranty that approval will be 'obtained promptly'.

Sixth, on closing, file Form FC-GPR within 30 days of allotment, or Form FC-TRS within 60 days of transfer or payment, whichever applies, through the authorised dealer bank on the FIRMS portal, and file Form DI separately if the investment itself is a downstream investment by an Indian entity that already carries foreign investment. Seventh, and often neglected, revisit the downstream and control position of the investee company immediately after closing. This check should not stop at the point of the original investment, since a later funding round, a shareholders' agreement amendment, or a change in the investor's own upstream ownership can retrospectively change whether the investee counts as foreign owned or controlled for the purposes of its own future downstream investments and sectoral compliance, even though nothing changed in the investee's own cap table on that date.

What remains unsettled

Several points in this area do not yet have a settled answer, and an investor or Indian company should treat them as open rather than resolved. The exact reconciliation between the government's June 2025 public denial that Press Note 3 was being amended and the Cabinet's own March 2026 relaxation of the same framework has not been addressed in any official statement located for this article, and the precise scope of the 10% non-controlling carve-out, particularly how beneficial ownership is to be aggregated across multiple unrelated limited partners in a single fund structure, has not yet been tested in a reported adjudication or ruling.

The September 2026 notification said to permit an inventory-based e-commerce model for exports has not been confirmed against the Official Gazette at the time of writing, and its practical workability, specifically how a regulator is meant to verify that inventory held under the relaxed model is genuinely earmarked for export rather than domestic sale, has been publicly questioned by commentators and remains to be tested once the first entities attempt to rely on it.

Tax treatment is similarly unsettled: the exact post-2026 taxation of share buybacks, including whether an additional charge on promoter shareholders specifically survives in the form reported, and the precise current rates applicable to listed and unlisted shares respectively, could not be fully reconciled from the sources available for this article and should be checked against the enacted text of the Finance Act, 2026 and the Income-tax Act, 2025 before any buyback is priced.

Finally, the control test under the NDI Rules, now aligned on paper with the Companies Act, 2013 definition, still lacks anything resembling the detailed, illustrated guidance that comparable regulators abroad have issued on where protective rights end and control begins; the Future Retail-Amazon observations remain the most prominent judicial treatment of the question in India, but they were made at an interim stage and on a prima facie basis, and a definitive Indian articulation of the boundary, of the kind that would let parties structure affirmative-vote and veto rights with real confidence, has not yet emerged.

The architecture governing foreign investment into India has not become simpler over the period surveyed here; if anything, the parallel 2025-2026 changes to the insurance cap, the land-border investment rules, the compounding framework and the e-commerce inventory rules show a regulator and a government making targeted adjustments to specific pressure points rather than a single coherent redesign. For a transaction team, the practical consequence is that the entry route, the sectoral condition and the beneficial-ownership position all have to be checked against the current text on the date of signing, not against a position understood to have been settled even a year earlier.

These disputes are not, for the most part, disputes about the policy itself; they are disputes between commercial parties who disagree, once a deal has gone wrong for other reasons, about what a particular contractual right was always meant to do. A FEMA or FDI-policy argument raised at that point rarely succeeds in defeating a counterparty's underlying rights, as the arbitration-enforcement cases discussed above illustrate, but it is capable of generating years of litigation and, separately, genuine regulatory exposure for the Indian company caught in the middle. Building the FEMA analysis into the transaction from the outset, and revisiting it at each later funding round rather than only at the first one, remains the more reliable way to avoid both outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

References & Further Reading

The provisions, rulings and official documents below were relied on for this article, which states the law as on 29 October 2026. The position can change with amendments, rules and later decisions, so check the current text before acting on any of it.

1. Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999
2. Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, 17 October 2019), as amended
3. Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026
4. Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2026, reportedly S.O. 4870(E) dated 2 September 2026 (e-commerce export inventory model; gazette reference unverified)
5. Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2020, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, effective 15 October 2020, as amended by subsequent Press Notes
6. Press Note 3 (2020 Series), Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, on investment from entities of countries sharing a land border with India
7. Cabinet decision of 10 March 2026 and subsequent DPIIT notification relaxing Press Note 3 for non-controlling investment up to 10% from land-border-linked beneficial owners
8. Prevention of Money Laundering (Maintenance of Records) Rules, 2005, rule 9, definition of beneficial owner
9. Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2025 ('Sabka Bima Sabki Suraksha'), amending the Insurance Act, 1938, the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 and the IRDAI Act, 1999
10. Space Sector FDI Policy, notified by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, February 2024
11. Foreign Exchange Management (Establishment in India of a Branch Office or a Liaison Office or a Project Office or any Other Place of Business) Regulations, 2016 (FEMA 22(R)/2016-RB, 31 March 2016), as amended
12. RBI Master Direction on Establishment of Branch Office / Liaison Office / Project Office in India by Foreign Entities (FED Master Direction No. 10/2015-16), as updated
13. RBI A.P. (DIR Series) Circular No. 16 dated 30 September 2022, on the Late Submission Fee for delayed reporting under FEMA
14. Foreign Exchange (Compounding Proceedings) Rules, 2024 (notified 12 September 2024)
15. RBI Master Direction on Compounding of Contraventions under FEMA, 1999 (RBI/FED/2025-26/135, dated 22 April 2025, amended 24 April 2025)
16. Section 13, Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (penalties)
17. Companies Act, 2013, section 123 (declaration of dividend) and the definition of control relied on in the NDI Rules amendment
18. Income-tax Act, 1961, section 115QA (as applicable prior to its supersession) and Finance Act, 2026 provisions on taxation of share buybacks effective 1 April 2026
19. Vijay Karia v Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi SRL, Civil Appeal No. 1544 of 2020, Supreme Court of India, decided 13 February 2020
20. Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v Unitech Limited, Delhi High Court, 2017, enforcement proceedings under Section 48, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
21. Future Retail Limited v Amazon.com NV Investment Holding LLC and others, Delhi High Court, order of Mukta Gupta J, 21 December 2020 (interim observations)
22. Standard Operating Procedure for Processing FDI Proposals under the Approval Route, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, as last revised (reportedly May 2026)
23. Enforcement Directorate adjudication order against BBC World Service (India) Pvt Ltd and its directors, reported February 2025
24. Enforcement Directorate adjudication order against PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd and its director, dated 16 February 2026

Related reading on this site

• Fdi compliance company structuring guide
• Fema fdi reporting fcgpr fctrs guide
• Joint ventures acquisitions contractual protections regulatory article
• Enforcing foreign arbitral awards india interim relief article