Giving advance to builder constitutes "purchase" of new house even if construction is not completed and title to the property has not passed to the assessee within the prescribed period

Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO I.T.A. No. 7512/Mum/2013 (ITAT Mumbai)

The assessee declared sale of a residential property vide sale agreement dated 8/12/2009 for a total consideration of Rs.1,02,55,000/-. After considering the indexed cost of acquisition of Rs.14,17,904/-, the long term capital gain was computed at Rs.88,37,096/-. The relevant capital gain was claimed as exempt under section 54 of the Act on the strength of having acquired a new residential house. The investment in acquisition of the new residential house was claimed by the assessee based on an advance of Rs.1.00 crore given to the builder as booking advance through a cheque dated 6/2/2010. The AO denied the claim for exemption on the ground that the provisions of section 54 of the Act require the assessee to purchase a new residential house either within a period of one year before the date on which the transfer of original asset took place or two years after date on which such transfer take place. He held that as even after two years of the date of transfer of old house the construction of the new property was not completed and that assessee had not gained possession of the new premises also. He, therefore, held that assessee did not comply with the requirements of section 54 of the Act in as much as it could not be said that assessee had purchased a new residential house within the period prescribed therein. This was confirmed by the CIT(A). 

 

On appeal by the assessee to the Tribunal HELD allowing the appeal:

• It is not disputed by the Revenue that the sum of Rs.1.00 crore has been invested by the assessee towards acquiring new property. Of course, the legal title in the said property has not passed or transferred to the assessee within the specified period and it is also quite apparent that the new property was still under construction. So however, the allotment letter by the builder mentions the flat number and gives specific details of the property. The word ‘purchase’ used in Section 54 of the Act should be interpreted pragmatically. The intention behind Section 54 was to give relief to a person who had transferred his residential house and had purchased another residential house within two years of transfer or had purchased a residential house one year before transfer. It was only the excess amount not used for making purchase or construction of the property within the stipulated period, which was taxable as long term capital gain while on the amount spent, relief should be granted. Principle of purposive interpretation should be applied to subserve the object and more particularly when one was concerned with exemption from payment of tax (CIT vs. Kuldeep Singh, 270 CTR 561 (Del), Smt. Ranjeet Sandhu vs. DCIT, 49 SOT 7 (Chandigargh) & Sanjeev Lal v. CIT [2014] 46 taxmann.com 300 referred) 
• The plea of the Revenue is that no purchase deed was executed by the builder and that there was only an allotment letter issued. As per the Revenue the advance could be returned at any time and, therefore, the assessee may lose the exemption under section 54 of the Act. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid does not militate against assessee’s claim for exemption in the instant assessment year, as there is no evidence that the advance has been returned. In case, if it is found that the advance has been returned, it would certainly call for forfeiture of the assessee’s claim under section 54 of the Act. In such a situation, the proviso below section 54(2) of the Act would apply whereby it is prescribed that such amount shall be charged under section 45 as income of the previous year, in which the period of three years from the date of the transfer of the original asset expires. The aforesaid provision also does not justify the action of the Assessing Officer in denying the claim of exemption under section 54 in the instant assessment year.

SEBI notifies norms for listing of start ups on Institution Trading platforms

SEBI had taken some key decisions in its board meeting held in June 2015, wherein one of the key decision was introduction of new platform for raising of capital by startups. Now SEBI has notified rules for listing of startups on Institution Trading platforms (‘ITP’) making it easier for such companies to raise capital. Such a bold move could change the landscape of the country’s equity capital markets. Consequently, SEBI has also made certain other changes due to introduction of Institutional Trading Platform.

The Key changes are given hereunder:

• Eligibility of entities for listing on ITP: Following entities are eligible for listing on ITP:
• Entities which are intensive in the use of technology, information technology, intellectual property, data analytics, bio-technology or nano-technology to provide products, services or business platforms with substantial value addition. 25% of pre-issue capital of such entities should be held by qualified institutional buyer(s) as on the date of filing of draft information document or draft offer document with the Board, as the case may be; or
• Any other entity in which at least 50% of the pre-issue capital is held by QIBs as on the date of filing of draft information document or draft offer document with the Board, as the case may be.

The norms further provides that no person, individually or collectively with person acting in concert shall hold 25% or more of the post-issue share capital in the start ups.

• Listing of securities on ITP without public issue: The entity shall obtain in-principle approval from the recognised stock exchanges on which it proposes to get its securities listed. It should list its specified securities on the recognised stock exchange(s) within thirty days from the date of issuance of observation by the Board. Norms of SEBI relating to allotment, opening and closing of issue, advertisement, underwriting, etc., shall not be applicable on such entities.
• Easier exit for entities listed on ITP without making a public issue: Entity whose securities are listed on the ITP platform may exit from such platform if:
• Its shareholders approve such exit by passing a special resolution via postal ballot where 90 % of the total votes and the majority of non-promoter votes should be in favor of such move; and
• Recognised stock exchange approves of such exist.
• Listing of securities on ITP pursuant to public issue: For such listing of securities SEBI has kept the size of minimum trading lot and minimum application amount as Rs. 10 lakhs. The number of allottees in such case shall be more than 200. The allocation in the net offer to public category shall be 75% for institutional investor and 25% for non-institutional investor.
• Lock in: The entire pre-issue capital of the shareholders shall be locked-in for a period of 6 months. In case of listing pursuant to public issue such period of 6 months will be counted from the date of allotment of securities. However, in case listing without public issue such period will be counted from date of listing of securities.
• Migration to main board: The start-ups listed on the institutional trading platform can migrate to the main board after expiry of three years by meeting certain guidelines.
• Other provisions: In order to reduce the timeline of public issue process, SEBI has mandated that acceptance of bids shall be made only by using Application Supported by Blocked Amount (‘ASBA’). In order to reduce the burden on compliance on start ups, SEBI also provides exemption to startups (listed on ITP without making public issue) from delisting norms and Take over code.

Auditor's certificate can't be a substitute for Transfer Pricing study to benchmark international transaction

Metro Tunneling Group v. JCIT- [2015] 58 taxmann.com 372 (Mumbai - Tribunal)

Facts:

• Assessee reimbursed certain costs and expenses to its associated enterprises (‘AEs’) for coordination and liaison works.
• Transfer Pricing Officers (TPO) determined the ALP of transactions relating to “reimbursement of Head office overheads” as NIL.
• The assessee argued that he had claimed expenditure as per the certificate issued by auditors which spelled out Head office overheads as a percentage of revenues.
• TPO rejected the claim of assessee and made additions, which was further confirmed by CIT(A). Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal before Tribunal.

Tribunal held in favour of Revenue as under:

• Assessee had not conducted any transfer pricing study forbenchmarkingof head officer expenditure. He had benchmarked this transaction on basis of certificate issued by the auditors.
• Under transfer pricing study, what is required to be seen is whether any other independent entity would have charged or the independent entity receiving the services would have paid to the extent that were charged by the AEs.
• This kind of study had not been carried out by the assessee as he was under the impression that the certificate issued by the auditors would satisfy the tests of Transfer Pricing study.
• In transfer pricing study, what is required to be done is to validate the claimwith an external comparable. Certificate issued by the auditors only spelled out the percentage of overheads over the revenue and, hence, it was only a factual aspect of internal figures.
• Accordingly,certificate issued by auditors could not be used as a substitute for Transfer Pricing study to benchmark international transaction.

Amendment in Benami Act

There is a proposal to amend the Benami Act. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 13th May, 2015 to amend the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988.

Any transaction within the definition of ‘benami transaction’ shall attract consequential action under the Benami Transactinos (Prohibition) Act, 1988 after the enactment of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015. Clause 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Bill, 2015 defines a “benami transaction” to mean, -

a transaction or an arrangement –

• where a property is transferred to, or is held by, a person, and the consideration for such property has been provided, or paid by, another person; and
• the property is held for the immediate for future benefit, direct or indirect, of the person who has provided the consideration, except when the property is held by-
• a Karta, or a member of a Hindu undivided family, as the case may be, and the property is held for his benefit or benefit of other members in the family and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of income of the Hindu undivided family;
• a person standing in a fiduciary capacity for the benefit of another person towards whom he stands in such capacity and includes a trustee, executor, partner, director of a company, a depository or a participant as an agent of a depository under the Depositories Act, 1996 and any other person as may be notified by the Central Government for this purpose;
• any person being an individual in the name of his spouse or in the name of any child of such individual and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of income of the individual;
• any person in the name of his brother or sister or lineal ascendant or descendant, where the names of brother and sister or lineal ascendant or descendant and the individual appear as joint-owners in any document, and the consideration for such property has been provided or paid out of the known sources of income of the individual; or
• a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property carried out or made in a fictitious name; or
• a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the owner of the property is not aware of, or, denies knowledge of, such ownership;
• a transaction or an arrangement in respect of a property where the person providing the consideration is not traceable or is fictitious.

Amendment to Non-Banking Financial (Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2007

The Reserve Bank of India vide Notification No. DNBR (PD) 016/CGM (CDS)-2015 dated 10-4-2015 has amended the Non-Banking Financial (Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2007 to state that all NBFCs with asset size of Rs.100 crores and above lending against the collateral of listed securities shall maintain a Loan to Value (LTV) ratio of 50% for loans granted against the collateral of shares. Further it is mandated that all shortfalls in the maintenance of the 50% LTV shall be made good within 7 days.

Similar Amendments are also carried out in Non-Systemically Important Non-Banking Financial (Non-Deposit Accepting or Holding) Companies Prudential Norms (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2015.

Mumbai ITAT interprets Article 5 of India-Singapore DTAA to decide constitution of installation PE in India

Kreuz Subsea Pte. Ltd vs DDIT - 58 taxmann.com 371

Facts:

• The assessee was tax resident of Singapore. It had undertaken installation and construction activity in respect of certain projects. The DRP held that the presence of assessee in India in excess of 90 days constitutes PE in India under Article 5(6) of India-Singapore DTAA (‘treaty’).
• The Ld. Counsel of assessee submitted that assessee was purely into installation and construction activity, which would clearly fall within Article 5(3) of treaty. Thus, activities of assessee would not constitute PE due to its presence in India for less than 183 days under Article 5(3) of DTAA.

The Tribunal held in favour of assessee as under:

• Article 5(3) of DTAA provides that -

“A building site or construction, installation or assembly project constitutes a permanent establishment only if it continues for a period of more than 183 days in any financial year.”

• Article 5(6) of DTAA provides that -

“An enterprise shall be deemed to have a permanent establishment in a contracting State if it furnishes services , other than services referred to in paragraphs 4 and 5 of this Article and technical services as define in Article 12, within a contracting State through employees or other personnel, but only if…...”

• Article 5(3) is a specific provision dealing with ‘Service PE’, on account of construction, installation or assembly project. Service PE would constitute if project continues for a period of more than 183 days in any fiscal year. Whereas Article 5(6) envisages that, if an enterprise is “furnishing services” in the contracting State through its employees for a period of 90 days or more, then it is deemed to have Service PE, except for the services referred to in paras 4 and 5.
• The threshold period under Article 5(6) is 90 days and more; if such activities are carried out for a related enterprise, then threshold period is more than 30 days. The Article 5(6) explicitly provides that it applies to “services” other than those covered by Articles 5(4) and 5(5), however, the said article is silent as regards its relationship with Article 5(3). Thus, Article 5(6) covers various services which are not covered by paras 4 and 5 of article 5 and technical services as defined in Article 12.
• In contradistinction, para 3 of article 5 is very specific and, therefore, such specific activities cannot be read into para 6 of article 5. There cannot be overlapping of activities carried out within the ambit of Article 5(3) and furnishing of services as stated in Article 5(6). Both should be read independent of each other, or else there would be no requirement of enshrining separate provisions.
• If the activities related to construction or installation are specifically covered under Article 5(3), then one need not to go in for Article 5(6). Thus, the activity of the assessee which is purely installation services has to be scrutinized under Article 5(3) only and not under Article 5(6). 

ITAT makes Section 43B disallowance even when assessee opts for presumptive taxation scheme

Non-payment of statutory liability before due date of filing of return would attract disallowance under Section 43B even if assessee had offered his income on presumptive basis.

Issue:

Whether disallowance of Section 43B could be made even when assessee opted for presumptive taxation Scheme?

The Tribunal held in favour of revenue as under:

• Under the presumptive taxation scheme, income of an assessee is computed at a fixed percentage of turnover and it would be deemed that that all deductions allowable under the head business or profession have already been allowed to assessee. In other words deductions allowable under Sections 28 to 43C are deemed to have been granted to assessee.
• Perusal of provisions of Section 43B shows that said provision is a restriction on allowance of particular expenditure, inter-alia, statutory liability, as it allows deduction of such liability on actual payment basis, i.e., expenditure shall not be allowed to be deducted unless same has been paid before the due date of filing the return.
• Section 44AF starts with the words “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Sec. 28 to 43C”, whereas section 43B starts with the words “notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act”. 
• The non-obstante clause in Sec. 43B has a far wider amplitude because it uses the words “notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act”. Therefore, even assuming that the deduction is permissible or the deduction is deemed to have been allowed under any other provisions of this Act, still the control placed by the provisions of Sec. 43B in respect of the statutory liabilities still holds precedence over such allowance.
• Hence, disallowance could be made by invoking the provisions of Sec. 43B in respect of the statutory liabilities, even though the assessee offered his income to tax on presumptive basis.

Note:

In the instant case, assessee has offered his income to tax on presumptive basis under Section 44AF. Provisions of Section 44AF are not applicable from assessment year beginning on or after the April 1, 2011. Thus, it can be inferred that the principal laid down by the ITAT would squarely apply when taxpayer has opted for presumptive taxation scheme under Section 44AD or Section 44AE.

Protection to Domestic/Traditional Industries

Activities of multinational and foreign companies are governed by the FDI policy contained in the Consolidated FDI policy circular 2015 and Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, as amended from time to time. In order to safeguard domestic and traditional industries, certain sectors/ activities are not open to ownership and control by non-residents. Further, investment in a number of sectors/ activities can be made only after government approval. Still, FDI in a number of sectors/activities is subject to performance-linked conditions. 

FDI policy of the Government though, on the one hand, has placed necessary safeguards to protect the domestic and traditional industries, on the other hand, has also kept most of the sectors under the automatic route to keep India as increasingly attracting destination for foreign investment. The measure is meant to help Indian entities to have access of foreign capital for their business growth. 

The detailed information is available in ‘Consolidated FDI Policy Circular of 2015’ at this Department’s website (www.dipp.nic.in).

Composite Caps on Foreign Investment

The Government, on 30.07.2015, introduced composite caps on foreign investments in the country, so that uniformity and simplicity are brought across the sectors in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) policy for attracting foreign investors. Composite cap is applicable across the sectors. 

With the introduction of composite caps foreign investment shall include all types of foreign investments, direct and indirect, regardless of whether the said investments have been made under Schedule 1 (FDI), 2 [Foreign Institutional Investor(FII)], 2A [Foreign Portfolio Investor(FPI)], 3 [Non-Resident Indian(NRI)], 6 [Foreign Venture Capital Investor(FVCI)], 8 [A Qualified Foreign Investor(QFI)], 9[Limited Liability Partnership (LLP)] and 10 [Depository Receipts(DRs)] of Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) (Transfer or Issue of Security by Persons Resident Outside India) Regulations. Foreign Currency Convertible Bond (FCCBs) and DRs having underlying of instruments which can be issued under Schedule 5, being in the nature of debt, shall not be treated as foreign investment. However, any equity holding by a person resident outside India resulting from conversion of any debt instrument under any arrangement shall be reckoned as foreign investment. The measure is expected to bring clarity in FDI policy and boost foreign investment. 

As regards misuse of the FDI policy and the monitoring mechanism, it is mentioned that RBI monitors the foreign investment inflows and specific violations of FDI policy are investigated by Enforcement Directorate.

Landing and parking charges for Aircrafts are not for ‘use of land’; attracts Section 194C

JAPAN AIRLINES CO. LTD. V. CIT [2015] 60 taxmann.com 71 (Supreme Court)

Landing and parking charges payable by Airlines in respect of aircrafts are not for the ‘use of land’ per se but the charges are in respect of number of facilities provided by the Airport Authority of India. Thus, landing and parking charges payable by Airlines would attract TDS under Section 194C and not under Section 194-I.

Facts:

• The issue disputed in the instant case was as to whether landing and parking charges paid by Airlines would attract TDS under Section 194-I or under Section 194C of the income-tax Act (‘the Act’)?
• The High Court of Delhi in case of CIT v. Japan Airlines Co. Ltd. [2009] 180 Taxman 188 (Delhi) has held that landing and parking charges would attract TDS under Section 194-I of the Act.
• However, the Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Singapore Airlines Ltd. [2012] 24 taxmann.com 200 (Madras)has taken a contrary view that landing and parking charges would attract TDS under Section 194C. The two judgments are in conflict with each other. It has to be determined as to which judgment should be allowed to hold the field?

The Supreme Court held as under:

• In the instant case, the Airlines are allowed to land and take-off their Aircrafts at Indira Gandhi International Airport (‘IGIA’) for which landing fee is charged. Likewise, they are allowed to park their Aircrafts at IGIA for which parking fee is charged. It is done under an agreement and/or arrangement with the Airport Authority of India (‘AAI’). The moot question is as to whether landing and take-off facilities on the one hand and parking facility on the other hand, would mean ‘use of land’.
• In the opinion of the Delhi High Court (Supra) “when the wheels of an aircraft coming into an airport touch the surface of the airfield, use of the land of the airport immediately begins”. Similarly, for parking the aircraft in that airport, there is use of the land. This is the basic, rather, the only reason given by the Delhi High Court in support of its conclusion that landing and parking charges would attract TDS under Section 194-I.
• The Madras High Court (Supra) examined the issue keeping wider perspective in mind thereby encompassing the utilization of the airport providing the facility of landing and take-off of the airplanes and also parking facility. After taken into consideration these aspects, the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that the facility was not of ‘use of land’ per se but the charges for landing and taking-off these airlines were in respect of number of facilities provided by the AAI which were to be necessarily provided in compliance with the various international protocol. The charges, therefore, were not for land usage or area allotted simpliciter. These were the charges for various services provided.
• We are convinced that the charges fixed by the AAI for landing and taking-off services as well as for parking of aircrafts were not for the ‘use of land’. That would be too simplistic an approach, ignoring other relevant details which would amply demonstrate that these charges were for services and facilities offered in connection with the aircraft operation at the airport. These services included providing of air traffic services, safety services, aeronautical communication facilities, installation and maintenance of navigational aids and meteorological services at the airport.
• Thus, payments for landing and parking charges were liable for TDS under Section 194C and not under Section 194-I of the Act. The view taken by the Madras High Court (Supra) was correct view and the judgment of the Delhi High Court (Supra)was to be over-ruled.

Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice

ACIT vs. Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)

Bogus sales and purchases: Reliance on statement of supplier who confesses to providing accommodation entries without giving assessee right of cross-examination violates principles of natural justice and the addition has to be deleted in toto

• The assessment was reopened on the basis of the statement of Shri Hiten L. Rawal, the proprietor of M/s Zalak Impex. In this statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, Shri Rawal confessed to have provided accommodation entries in the form of sales and purchases, to various parties. The assessee was stated to have obtained bills for non-existing parties, amounting to Rs. 4,09,12,718, during the year under consideration. It remains undisputed that the assessee was never provided any opportunity to cross examine Shri Hiten L. Rawal, though he specifically asked for such cross examination. On the other hand, the burden was sought to be shifted on the assessee by the A.O., by asking him to produce Shri Rawal, even though it was the A.O. who had relied on the statement of Shri Rawal, without either confronting this statement to the assessee, or providing opportunity to the assessee to cross examine Shri Rawal. Therefore, the reassessment order is as a result of violation of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby cancel the same. As a consequence, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is also cancelled in toto.
• Further, even otherwise, before the A.O., the assessee had contended that the assessee being in an export promotion zone, the movement of its goods is controlled and customs approved; that the purchases being approved purchases, there was no question of their being bogus purchases. The assessee enclosed the custom approved invoices in respect of purchases from Zalak Impex. As per these invoices, the goods purchased had been verified and approved by the Customs Authority. This clearly shows that the goods had actually been purchased and received by the assessee. As such, these purchases could not have, by any stretch of imagination, been treated as bogus purchases. It is also noteworthy that the payments made by the assessee to Zalak Impex were through account payee cheques only. Neither of the Taxing Authorities, however, took these invoices into consideration and wrongly held the assessee’s purchases from Zalak Impex to be bogus purchases. Nothing has been brought on record to show that these invoices were self made or fabricated. Moreover, the comparative chart of purchases made during the year and the selling price has not been refuted and this also goes to prove the theory of bogus bills and accommodation entries to be wrong. Therefore, the order under appeal is a result of complete misreading and non-reading of cogent documentary evidence brought on record by the assessee. For this reason also, along with the reason that the sales made by the assessee were never questioned, the addition is deleted in toto.

FDI in 2015-16

The sector-wise information on FDI equity inflow received during Financial Year 2015-16 (upto May, 2015) is as below:

S.No	Sector	Amount of FDI Inflows
		(In Rs crore)	(In US$ million)
1	COMPUTER SOFTWARE & HARDWARE	14,428.43	2,273.13
2	AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY	6,355.14	1,006.84
3	TRADING	4,186.78	663.47
4	SERVICES SECTOR (Fin., Banking, Insurance, Non Fin/Business, Outsourcing, R&D, Courier, Tech. Testing and Analysis, Other)	3,091.15	488.06
5	CONSTRUCTION (INFRASTRUCTURE) ACTIVITIES	2,357.32	373.9
6	TELECOMMUNICATIONS	2,320.27	363.75
7	SEA TRANSPORT	1,147.55	182.33
8	HOSPITAL & DIAGNOSTIC CENTRES	1,028.20	163.27
9	DRUGS & PHARMACEUTICALS	1,010.25	158.66
10	HOTEL & TOURISM	999.91	157.58
11	POWER	976.37	154.82
12	CHEMICALS (OTHER THAN FERTILIZERS)	951.44	149.96
13	SOAPS, COSMETICS & TOILET PREPARATIONS	830.78	132.35
14	MISCELLANEOUS INDUSTRIES	697.42	110.29
15	ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS	681.29	107.82
16	TEXTILES (INCLUDING DYED,PRINTED)	570.26	90.54
17	RUBBER GOODS	484.38	76.72
18	METALLURGICAL INDUSTRIES	466.99	73.8
19	EDUCATION	464.29	73.77
20	INFORMATION & BROADCASTING (INCLUDING PRINT MEDIA)	454.23	71.55
21	NON-CONVENTIONAL ENERGY	449.26	71.06
22	INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY	413.47	65.44
23	FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES	373.96	59.02
24	MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL & ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES	353.84	56.04
25	ELECTRONICS	353.58	55.55
26	EARTH-MOVING MACHINERY	276.28	44.02
27	PRINTING OF BOOKS (INCLUDING LITHO PRINTING INDUSTRY)	189.67	30
28	CONSULTANCY SERVICES	185.82	29.29
29	MEDICAL AND SURGICAL APPLIANCES	150.2	23.9
30	DIAMOND,GOLD ORNAMENTS	114.21	17.91
31	TIMBER PRODUCTS	102.97	16.14
32	CERAMICS	101.05	16.1
33	PRIME MOVER (OTHER THAN ELECTRICAL GENERATORS)	101.26	15.87
34	SUGAR	90	14.34
35	VEGETABLE OILS AND VANASPATI	78.37	12.28
36	CEMENT AND GYPSUM PRODUCTS	57.2	9.12
37	RAILWAY RELATED COMPONENTS	41.05	6.54
38	AGRICULTURE SERVICES	37.64	5.99
39	PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS	31.35	5
40	LEATHER,LEATHER GOODS AND PICKERS	31.34	4.98
41	MACHINE TOOLS	22.18	3.51
42	INDUSTRIAL INSTRUMENTS	21.97	3.44
43	AIR TRANSPORT (INCLUDING AIR FREIGHT)	21.57	3.39
44	COMMERCIAL, OFFICE & HOUSEHOLD EQUIPMENTS	16.27	2.59
45	PAPER AND PULP (INCLUDING PAPER PRODUCTS)	15.03	2.36
46	MINING	13.88	2.21
47	FERMENTATION INDUSTRIES	12.7	2
48	CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT: Townships, housing, built-up infrastructure and construction-development projects	12.06	1.9
49	GLASS	6.02	0.95
50	AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY	5.14	0.81
51	SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS	1.32	0.21
52	DYE-STUFFS	0.25	0.04
	Grand Total	47,183.37	7,454.64

Proposals for big investments pertains to Pharmaceuticals, Information & Broadcasting, Insurance, Non-banking Finance Companies, Private Banks and other financial sectors. There are 19 proposals of big investments, each in excess of Rs. 100 crores under consideration of Government.  Estimated investment in respect of these proposals is Rs. 30,552.45 crores.