Question 1

According to the above Case Scenario, Baking Point Limited closed its Register of Members for twelve days in connection with the issue of Bonus Shares to its shareholders. You are required to choose the correct option from those stated below as to the maximum time limit for which the Register of Members can be closed at any one time at a stretch by Baking Point Limited?

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (b)**

As per **Section 91(1) of the Companies Act, 2013**, a company may close its Register of Members for any period or periods not exceeding in the aggregate **45 days in each year**, but not exceeding **20 days at any one time**. Therefore, although Baking Point Limited closed its Register of Members for twelve days (which is within the permissible limit), the maximum it is permitted to close the Register at any one stretch is **twenty days**.

Question 2

Baking Point Limited declared issue of Bonus Shares in the ratio of 1:2 to its shareholders. Which one of the following resources Baking Point Limited was not permitted to capitalize for issuing Bonus Shares? Considering the applicable provisions, you are required to choose the correct option from those given below:

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (c)**

As per **Section 63 of the Companies Act, 2013**, a company may issue fully paid-up bonus shares out of its **free reserves**, **Securities Premium Account**, or **Capital Redemption Reserve Account**. However, the proviso to Section 63(1) expressly states that no bonus shares shall be issued by capitalising reserves created by the **revaluation of assets**.

In the given case, Baking Point Limited has a Revaluation Reserve of ₹1.50 crore created on account of revaluation of fixed assets. This reserve is explicitly prohibited from being used for the purpose of issuing bonus shares under the Companies Act, 2013.

All other sources — Free Reserves (₹2.10 crore), Securities Premium Account (₹0.30 crore), and Capital Redemption Reserve (₹0.25 crore) — are **permitted sources** for capitalisation under Section 63(1). Therefore, option (c) correctly identifies the prohibited source.

Question 3

It is evident from the above Case Scenario that Baking Point Limited closed its Register of Members for the first time in the year 2025 for twelve days for the purpose of issuing Bonus Shares to its shareholders. Maximum for how many times and for how much period or periods, a company is permitted to close its Register of Members in each year? Considering the relevant provisions, you are required to choose the correct option from those mentioned below:

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (a)**

As per **Section 91 of the Companies Act, 2013**, a company may close its Register of Members, Register of Debenture Holders, or Register of Other Security Holders for any period or periods not exceeding **45 days in each year**, but not exceeding **30 days at any one time**. There is no restriction on the number of times the register may be closed — it can be closed one or more times — but the **aggregate closure period in a year must not exceed 45 days**. Option (a) correctly states this limit.

Question 4

Baking Point Limited issued Bonus Shares to its shareholders in a 1:2 ratio. Which of the following statements is true regarding the issuance of Bonus Shares?

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (a)**

As per **Section 63 of the Companies Act, 2013**, a company may issue fully paid-up bonus shares to its members out of free reserves, securities premium account, or capital redemption reserve account, provided the issuance is **authorised by the Articles of Association (AOA)**. The AOA must expressly permit the issuance of bonus shares; otherwise, the company cannot proceed. In the given case, Baking Point Limited's Board resolved on December 6, 2024 and the EGM approved on January 9, 2025 — both steps being part of the mandatory process, which also requires AOA authorisation as a foundational condition.

Option (b) is incorrect because Section 63 mandates Board approval as a prerequisite. Option (c) is incorrect because bonus shares are issued free of cost to existing shareholders — no additional capital contribution is required. Option (d) is incorrect because bonus shares are fully paid-up shares issued at no cost (not at a discounted price) to existing shareholders.

Question 5

Baking Point Limited declared a final dividend for the financial year 2023-24 at its Annual General Meeting (AGM). As per the Companies Act, 2013, what should the company do if a shareholder does not claim the dividend within 30 days of declaration?

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (b)**

As per **Section 124 of the Companies Act, 2013**, where a dividend has been declared by a company but has not been paid or claimed within **30 days from the date of declaration**, the company must transfer the total amount of unpaid or unclaimed dividend to a special account called the **'Unpaid Dividend Account'** opened by the company in a scheduled bank. This transfer must be made **within 7 days from the expiry of the said 30-day period**. Only after the amount remains unclaimed in the Unpaid Dividend Account for **7 consecutive years** is it required to be transferred to the **Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF)** under Section 125. Therefore, option (b) correctly states the immediate statutory obligation.

Question 6

As per the Companies Act, 2013, for how long must Baking Point Limited retain its Books of Account and other financial records in electronic mode?

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (c) 8 years**

As per **Section 128(5) of the Companies Act, 2013**, every company is required to maintain its books of account and other relevant books and papers and financial statements for every financial year for a period of **not less than eight years** immediately preceding the relevant financial year. This requirement applies equally whether the books are maintained in physical or electronic mode. Since Baking Point Limited maintains its books electronically at www.bakingpoint.com, the same eight-year retention period is applicable.

Question 7

Suppose now, Baking Point Limited wants to appoint an Internal Auditor to review its operations and compliance. As per the Companies Act, 2013, which of the following statements is correct?

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (c)**

Under **Section 138 of the Companies Act, 2013** read with **Rule 13 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014**, an Internal Auditor may be a **Chartered Accountant (CA)** (whether in practice or not), a **Cost Accountant (CMA)**, or **any other professional as decided by the Board of Directors**. The Internal Auditor can also be an employee of the company. Appointment is not mandatory for all companies — it applies only to prescribed classes (listed companies, certain unlisted public companies, and private companies meeting specified thresholds). The appointment is made by the **Board of Directors**, not by shareholders through a special resolution. Option (b) is incorrect as a CA in practice is not the exclusive requirement.

Question 8

XYZ LLP, a well-established limited liability partnership, had two designated partners, Aditi and Rajiv. On 15th January, 2025, Rajiv resigned due to personal reasons, leaving Aditi as the only designated partner in the LLP. The remaining partners were aware of their responsibility to appoint a new designated partner as per the requirement of the Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) Act, 2008. However, due to internal disagreements, they failed to appoint a new designated partner within the prescribed time frame. On 20th February 2025, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) issued a notice to XYZ LLP, seeking clarification on its compliance status regarding the appointment of the designated partner. As per the LLP Act, 2008, choose the correct option if XYZ LLP fails to appoint a second designate…

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (c)**

Under Section 16 of the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, every LLP must have at least 2 designated partners at all times. A vacancy occurs when a designated partner resigns, dies, or is removed. Upon such a vacancy, the LLP must appoint a replacement designated partner within **30 days**. In this case, Rajiv's resignation on 15th January 2025 created a vacancy, and the 30-day period expired on 14th February 2025. Since XYZ LLP failed to appoint a new designated partner by this deadline (as confirmed by the ROC's notice on 20th February 2025), **Section 16(7) of the LLP Act, 2008 applies**. Under this provision, when no replacement is appointed within 30 days, **each of the remaining partners is automatically deemed to be a designated partner**. Consequently, Aditi and all other partners of XYZ LLP would be treated as designated partners and held jointly responsible for all compliance obligations, including statutory filings, record-keeping, representation with ROC, and personal liability for the LLP's acts.

Question 9

Pranab, an Indian citizen and a software engineer, was working for a multinational IT firm based in Singapore for over eight years. During his tenure, he accumulated substantial savings in his Singapore bank account and invested in a few properties there. With a plan to permanently return to India, he decided to sell one of his properties and transfer the proceeds to his newly opened bank account in India. Simultaneously, Pranab's employer deputed him to India for a critical software development project for three years, effective from January 2023. His salary was credited to his Indian bank account. Now, Pranab wishes to transfer the proceeds from selling his property in Singapore to his bank account in India. As per the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which of the…

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (c)**

Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, the ability to repatriate sale proceeds of foreign immovable property depends critically on the person's residential status at the time of property acquisition, not merely at the time of repatriation.

The key FEMA provision allows **residents of India to freely repatriate the sale proceeds of immovable property located abroad, provided the property was acquired when the person was a non-resident (resident outside India)**. Since Pranab acquired the properties in Singapore while he was a non-resident working there for over 8 years, he can now freely transfer the sale proceeds to India without prior RBI approval.

Option (a) is incorrect because while he is now a resident, not all amounts can be transferred "without any restrictions"—the critical condition is the status at acquisition. Option (b) is entirely wrong; properties acquired outside India are specifically permitted to be repatriated. Option (d) is incorrect; RBI approval is not required if the property was acquired during non-residency, as this falls within permitted transactions under FEMA guidelines.

Question 10

Ms. Kanika Tripathi, an accomplished classical dancer, has been invited by Oxford University to perform at a cultural event. She seeks to withdraw USD 75,000 for tour expenses. What is the most likely restriction on this transaction under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and its guidelines?

Accepted Answer

**Answer: (b)** Under the Liberalized Remittance Scheme (LRS) established under FEMA, Indian residents can freely remit foreign exchange for permitted current or capital account transactions without requiring prior RBI approval. Travel expenses for cultural performances and tours fall within the permitted category of travel-related purposes under LRS. Ms. Tripathi's proposed withdrawal of USD 75,000 is well within the annual LRS limit of USD 250,000 per financial year. Therefore, she can withdraw the foreign exchange freely without seeking RBI's prior approval, making option (b) the correct answer.

Question 11

Grab Ltd., an unlisted company, intends to make a public offer of securities. However, they are not sure about the compliance requirements for issuing securities in dematerialised form. You being an expert, guide Grab Ltd. on the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and whether Grab Ltd. is eligible to issue its securities?

Accepted Answer

**Section 29 of the Companies Act, 2013** permits an unlisted public company to issue securities in dematerialised form by way of a public offer without listing them on any stock exchange, subject to specific conditions and regulatory compliance.

**Eligibility Criteria for Grab Ltd.:**

Grab Ltd. must satisfy three mandatory conditions to be eligible under Section 29(1):

1. **Net Worth Requirement**: The company must have a net worth of **not less than ₹50 crore** at the time of the public offer. Net worth is calculated as total assets minus total liabilities as per the audited financial statements.

2. **Offer Size Requirement**: The proposed offer of securities must be **of value not less than ₹25 crore**. This minimum threshold ensures only substantial capital-raising exercises are covered under this exemption.

3. **Listing Requirement**: The securities offered must be **listed on a recognised stock exchange within six months** from the date of the public offer. This is a critical condition to ensure eventual liquidity and regulatory supervision of the securities.

**Compliance Requirements for Dematerialised Form Issuance:**

If Grab Ltd. meets the eligibility criteria, it must comply with the following requirements:

1. **Dematerialised Form**: All securities must **mandatorily be issued in dematerialised form only**. Physical certificates are not permitted under Section 29.

2. **ICDR Regulations Compliance**: The company must comply with the **SEBI (Issue of Capital…

Question 12

Shenoy Limited is a company with an authorized share capital of 20,00,000 equity shares of ₹100 each. At the Annual General Meeting (AGM), the shareholders proposed to reduce the face value of each share from ₹100 to ₹10 and correspondingly increase the number of shares from 20 lakh to 2 crore, keeping the total authorized share capital unchanged. Analyse whether the request of the shareholders is considerable and if so, how the company can alter its share capital as per the provisions of the Companies Act 2013?

Accepted Answer

**Yes, the shareholders' request is permissible and can be proceeded with.**

**Legal Validity:**
The proposed action is a **sub-division of shares** under Section 61(1)(c) of the Companies Act 2013. Sub-dividing shares from ₹100 to ₹10 face value (creating 10 shares of ₹10 for every 1 share of ₹100) is expressly permitted under this section. Crucially, the total authorized share capital remains unchanged at ₹20 crore (20,00,000 × ₹100 = 2,00,00,000 × ₹10), which does not constitute a reduction of capital requiring court approval under Section 64.

**Procedure for Alteration:**

**1. Board of Directors' Action:**
The Board must pass a resolution recommending the sub-division. The Board should verify that the Articles of Association authorize such alteration under its general powers. Since sub-division is a standard alteration right under the Companies Act, most Articles permit it without specific amendment.

**2. Shareholders' Approval:**
A **Special Resolution** must be passed at the Annual General Meeting (or Extraordinary General Meeting) under Section 61(1). This requires three-fourths majority of shareholders. The resolution must clearly state the ratio of sub-division (1:10) and the new face value. Notice convening the meeting must disclose the specific proposal.

**3. Alteration of Memorandum of Association:**
If the Memorandum explicitly specifies the authorized share capital as "20,00,000 shares of ₹100 each," it must be amended to "2,00,00,000 shares of ₹10 each." I…

Question 13

Excel Pvt. Ltd. received ₹50 lakh from Mr. Giver. Mr. Giver was a director of the company at the time of the transaction. However, Mr. Giver did not submit any written declaration stating that the amount was not given out of borrowed funds. The company utilized the said funds for business expansion and disclosed the receipt of money in the Board's report. Considering the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, assess the following situations:

Accepted Answer

**Part (1): Compliance Assessment**

Excel Pvt. Ltd. was **not compliant** with the statutory requirements under the Companies Act, 2013. Section 73 of the Act mandates that when a director deposits money in the company, the director must provide a written declaration stating that the amount is not given out of borrowed funds. This declaration must be submitted before or at the time of deposit. In the present case, Mr. Giver failed to submit any such written declaration despite depositing ₹50 lakh. This constitutes a clear violation of the statutory requirement. The company's disclosure of the receipt in the Board's report is a separate transparency obligation and does not cure the non-compliance. The written declaration from the director is a mandatory legal prerequisite for accepting funds from a director, and its absence makes the transaction statutorily non-compliant, irrespective of the company's intention to use the funds for legitimate business expansion.

**Part (2): Classification of Amount as Deposit**

Yes, if Mr. Giver had obtained the ₹50 lakh from borrowed funds and then given it to the company, the amount would be **classified as a deposit** under the Companies Act, 2013. Section 73 of the Act defines deposits to include money accepted by a company which is payable out of borrowed funds. The source and origin of funds are determinative factors in classification—money derived from borrowing constitutes a deposit under the statutory framework. Once classified as …

Question 14

Madan Pvt. Ltd. is a partially owned subsidiary of Puri Ltd., holding 90% of its shares. The company does not have any listed securities and is not in the process of listing on any stock exchange. Puri Ltd., the holding company, prepares and files consolidated financial statements (CFS) with the Registrar in compliance with applicable Accounting Standards. Considering the above, analyze and examine the following situations:

Accepted Answer

**Part (1): Requirement to Prepare Consolidated Financial Statements**

Madan Pvt. Ltd. is NOT required to prepare consolidated financial statements in the given scenario.

Section 129(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides an exemption to subsidiary companies from preparing consolidated financial statements if ALL the following conditions are satisfied simultaneously:

(a) The subsidiary is a subsidiary of a company incorporated in India;
(b) The holding company has prepared consolidated financial statements as per applicable Accounting Standards;
(c) The subsidiary does not have any listed securities; and
(d) The subsidiary is not in the process of listing on any recognized stock exchange or under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

**Application to Madan Pvt. Ltd.:**

All four conditions are satisfied in the given case:
- Madan Pvt. Ltd. is a subsidiary (90% shareholding by Puri Ltd.), and Puri Ltd. is incorporated in India (implied from the context).
- Puri Ltd., the holding company, has prepared and filed consolidated financial statements with the Registrar in compliance with applicable Accounting Standards.
- Madan Pvt. Ltd. does not have any listed securities.
- Madan Pvt. Ltd. is not in the process of listing on any recognized stock exchange.

Therefore, Madan Pvt. Ltd. is exempted from the requirement to prepare consolidated financial statements. However, Madan Pvt. Ltd. must still prepare its own standalone financial statements as per Section 129(1) of the Co…

Question 15

ABC Pvt. Ltd. is a One Person Company (OPC) incorporated in 2024. The company has not appointed a company secretary due to its small scale of operations. At the end of the financial year 2024-25, the company needs to file its annual return. The director in state of dilemma, consulted the company law expert whether they need to submit a full-fledged annual return or an abridged version and who should sign the document. Based on the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, advise on the following:

Accepted Answer

Based on Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013, and the Companies (Management and Administration) Rules, 2014, the following advice is provided:

**(i) Applicable Form:** ABC Pvt. Ltd. should file its annual return using **Form MGT-7A**, which is the **abridged annual return form** specifically prescribed for **One Person Companies**. Unlike regular private companies that file the full annual return in Form MGT-7, OPCs are entitled to file a simplified version to reduce compliance burden while maintaining necessary disclosures. Form MGT-7A contains fewer particulars and is designed to suit the operational simplicity of OPCs. The company must file this form with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) within 60 days of the Annual General Meeting or by the prescribed deadline, whichever is earlier.

**(ii) Authorized Signatory:** The annual return in Form MGT-7A must be signed by the **Director** of the company. Since ABC Pvt. Ltd. has not appointed a Company Secretary, the Director assumes full responsibility for signing and authenticating the annual return. The Director must affix their signature along with their Designated Identification Number (DIN) as per the prescribed format. The Director is personally liable for the accuracy, completeness, and truthfulness of information furnished in the annual return. Unlike regular companies where both Director and Company Secretary (if appointed) may jointly sign, for OPCs without a secretary, the Director's signature alone is both necessar…

Question 16

M/s Sharma & Associates is an audit firm with two partners, Mr. Sharma and Mr. Raj. Mr. Raj is also a partner in another audit firm, M/s Mehta & Associates. M/s Sharma & Associates was appointed as the statutory auditor for Bright Future Ltd. (listed company, on which provisions related to rotation of auditor apply) for two consecutive terms of 5 years each, from 2017 to 2027. If Bright Future Ltd. now wants to appoint M/s Mehta & Associates as its audit firm, can it do so? If not, when will the restriction be lifted?

Accepted Answer

No, Bright Future Ltd. cannot appoint M/s Mehta & Associates as its statutory auditor at present, due to the auditor rotation and cooling-off period provisions combined with the common partner restriction.

**Auditor Rotation Requirement**: Section 139(1) of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes that no person shall hold office as auditor for more than two consecutive terms of five years each in the case of a listed company. M/s Sharma & Associates has already completed two consecutive terms from 2017 to 2027, reaching its maximum permissible tenure.

**Cooling-off Period under Section 139(2)**: Section 139(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 establishes a mandatory cooling-off period of 5 years immediately following the expiry of the second consecutive term. During this period, an auditor or audit firm that has held office for two consecutive terms shall be **ineligible for reappointment and cannot be appointed as an auditor**. Consequently, M/s Sharma & Associates is barred from appointment until after 2032.

**Common Partner Restriction**: The critical issue is that M/s Mehta & Associates shares Mr. Raj as a common partner with M/s Sharma & Associates. Rule 4(4) of the Companies (Audit and Auditors) Rules, 2014 explicitly provides that during the cooling-off period, only "a new audit firm in which **none of the partners is a partner in the audit firm previously appointed**" may be appointed. This restriction aims to prevent circumvention of the rotation requirement by shifting to a…

Question 17

JEET LLP is a small scale consulting firm. For the financial year 2024-25, the firm reported a total contribution of ₹ 20 lakh and an annual turnover of ₹ 35 lakh as per its Statement of Accounts and Solvency. The LLP intends to avail benefits granted to small LLPs under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008.

Accepted Answer

**Definition of Small LLP**: Under Rule 2(1)(zg) of the Limited Liability Partnership Rules, 2009, a limited liability partnership is classified as a **Small LLP** if, in any financial year, it satisfies both of the following criteria simultaneously: (1) the contribution in the LLP does not exceed ₹25 lakhs, and (2) the turnover for that financial year does not exceed ₹40 lakhs. Both conditions must be met concurrently for the classification.

**(a) Classification of JEET LLP for FY 2024-25**: JEET LLP **qualifies as a Small LLP** under the LLP Act, 2008. Analysis: The contribution reported is ₹20 lakhs, which is within the prescribed limit of ₹25 lakhs. The annual turnover is ₹35 lakhs, which is within the prescribed limit of ₹40 lakhs. Since JEET LLP satisfies both conditions in FY 2024-25, it is entitled to the **benefits and exemptions granted to small LLPs**, which include reduced compliance burden, exemption from filing detailed financial statements, reduced audit requirements in certain cases, and simplified reporting procedures.

**(b) Legal Position upon Expansion**: If JEET LLP's turnover exceeds ₹50 crore in the next financial year, the **legal position is that it ceases to be classified as a Small LLP from that financial year onwards**. Once the turnover limit of ₹40 lakhs is exceeded in any financial year, the LLP loses its Small LLP status and becomes subject to the **full compliance regime applicable to regular LLPs** under the Act. This means JEET LLP would: (…

Question 18

Mr. N is caught stealing a bicycle, an offense punishable under the Indian Penal Code. According to Section 379 of the IPC, the punishment for theft was charged against him. Elaborate how the term 'imprisonment' levied under the General Clauses Act, 1897, can be applied in line with the relevant law specified in the IPC?

Accepted Answer

The **General Clauses Act, 1897** is an interpretive statute that provides standardized definitions for terms used across all Indian statutes. Section 3(27) specifically defines the term 'imprisonment.'

**Definition under Section 3(27):** When the term 'imprisonment' is used in any Central Act without qualification, it means **simple imprisonment** by default. Rigorous imprisonment must be explicitly mentioned as 'rigorous imprisonment' or 'imprisonment with hard labor' if that is the intended punishment.

**Distinction Between Imprisonment Types:**

*Simple Imprisonment:* A form of custody without hard labor. The convict is held in prison but not subjected to forced manual work. Basic rights and facilities are maintained.

*Rigorous Imprisonment:* Imprisonment coupled with compulsory hard labor. This is a more severe form and requires explicit statutory prescription.

**Application to Section 379 IPC (Theft):**

Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code defines theft and prescribes punishment as 'imprisonment which may extend to 3 years, or with fine up to Rs. 250, or with both.' The statute uses the unqualified term 'imprisonment.' In accordance with Section 3(27) of the General Clauses Act, this unqualified reference means **simple imprisonment**, not rigorous imprisonment. The IPC does not expressly prescribe rigorous imprisonment for theft under this section.

**Application to Mr. N's Case:**

Mr. N is charged with stealing a bicycle, an offense under Section 379 IPC. Per th…

Question 19

What is the meaning and legal significance of the principle 'generalia specialibus non derogant'? Explain with an example.

Accepted Answer

**Meaning of 'Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant'**

This Latin maxim translates to 'general things do not derogate from specific things,' meaning that when a general law and a special law deal with the same subject matter, the special law prevails in case of conflict. The specific provision takes precedence over the general one. When both general and special statutes exist on the same subject, the courts interpret the special statute to override or modify the application of the general statute to that specific situation.

**Legal Significance**

This principle is fundamental to statutory interpretation and holds significant importance in legal practice: (1) **Conflict Resolution**: It provides a hierarchy for resolving apparent conflicts between general and special laws, ensuring that the legislature's specific intent (expressed through special legislation) is not frustrated by general provisions. (2) **Preservation of Intent**: It assumes that when Parliament enacts a special law for a particular class or situation, it intends that special law to govern those specific cases, despite any general law that might otherwise apply. (3) **Prevents Over-Breadth**: The principle prevents general laws from unintentionally overriding the carefully calibrated provisions of specific statutes. (4) **Legal Certainty**: It provides predictability and clarity in law application by establishing a clear rule of preference.

**Practical Application**

Consider the Companies Act, 2013 as a gene…

Question 20

Answer the following sub-questions regarding remittances under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999:

Accepted Answer

**Part (i): Remittance for Education Abroad under LRS**

Mr. Amrish's parents, as Indian residents, can remit funds for his postgraduate education abroad through the **Liberalised Remittance Scheme (LRS)** under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

**Applicable Provisions:** LRS permits Indian residents to remit up to **USD 2,50,000 per financial year** for permitted current account transactions, including education expenses abroad. Education-related remittances cover tuition fees, accommodation, books, and other educational expenses.

**Process for Remittance:**

1. The parents should approach their bank (Authorized Dealer) with a request to remit funds for education abroad.

2. They must provide supporting documentation including:
   - Admission letter from the foreign university
   - Fee structure and course duration
   - Proof of admission and course details
   - Identity and address proof of parents

3. Since the annual course fee of ₹3,50,000 falls well within the USD 2,50,000 limit, the remittance can be approved without difficulty.

4. The bank will process the remittance through normal banking channels, converting the amount into foreign currency at the prevailing exchange rate.

**Advantages:** The LRS route is the most straightforward method, does not require RBI approval on a case-by-case basis, and can be used repeatedly for educational expenses without additional documentation beyond the initial disclosures.

---

**Part (ii): Net Salary Remittance by Per…

CA Inter Corp Laws

Drill 5 questions from this paper — instant grading

Worked Solution

Write it like this

1The skeleton

2Examiner-rewarded phrases

3Common trap