Stocks
BSE Sensex, Nifty may rise: Thursday Closing Report

Downtrend has been arrested for now. But for the upmove to be strong, Nifty should close decisively above 5,685


Gains in consumer durables, in view of the festive season, and robust sales for October boosted the auto sector today, helping the market recover in the second half of trade. Yesterday we had mentioned that the Nifty’s downtrend may be mitigated on a close above 5,645. Today the index closed at the same level. We may now see a small rally. But the small upmove would be confirmed if the index closes above 5,685. The National Stock Exchange (NSE) saw a volume of 57.38 crore shares with an advance decline of 907:519.

 

The Indian market opened marginally lower on weak global cues and pressure on the Reliance Industries stock after India Against Corruption (IAC) activist Arvind Kejriwal yesterday alleged that the Congress and BJP had granted undue favours to the company. On the global front, markets in Asia were mostly in the red in morning trade despite an uptick in China’s manufacturing output in October. Overnight, the US markets settled flat in thin trading following the two-day weather-related market shutdown.

 

The Nifty opened 10 points down at 5,610 and the Sensex started the day at 18,488, a cut of 17 points over its previous close. The benchmarks hovered on both sides of their previous close till late morning trade. In the interim, the market fell to its lows at around 10.30 am with the Nifty going back to 5,602 and the Sensex retracting to 18,445.

 

Buying in heavyweights enabled the indices emerge into the green in pre-noon trade. Gains in consumer durables, auto, realty and healthcare sectors pushed the indices to their highs just after 2.30pm. At the highs the Nifty touched 5,650 and the Sensex rose to 18,589.

 

The benchmarks pared a small part of their gains and settled in the positive for the second day in a row. The Nifty gained 25 points to 5,645 and the Sensex added 56 points to finish the session at 18,562.

 

The broader indices outperformed the Sensex today, as the BSE Mid-cap index climbed 0.58% and the BSE Small-cap index rose 0.75%.

 

Except for two sectoral indices, all other sectoral indices ended in the positive. The main gainers were BSE Consumer durables (up 5.57%); BSE Auto (up 2.20%); BSE Realty (up 1.79%); BSE Power (up 1.02%) and BSE Healthcare (up 0.88%). The losers were BSE FMCG (down 0.86%) and BSE Oil & Gas (down 0.28%)

 

21 of the 30 stocks on the Sensex closed in the positive. The chief gainers were Tata Motors (up 4.89%); Bharti Airtel (up 4.41%); Cipla (up 3.12%); Wipro (up 3.02%) and Bajaj Auto (up 1.71%). The main losers were Hindustan Unilever (down 1.84%); ONGC (down 1.34%); ITC (down 1.26%); GAIL (down 0.90%); HDFC Bank (down 0.89%)

 

The top two A Group gainers on the BSE were—Titan Industries (up 9.83%) and Aurobindo Pharma (up 7.36%)

The top two A Group losers on the BSE were—Coromandel International (down 2.21%) and Hindustan Unilever (down 1.84%)

 

The top two B Group gainers on the BSE were—Birla Ericsson (up 19.98%) and Shekhawati Poly-Yarn (up 19.88%)

The top two B Group losers on the BSE were—Aunde India (down 11.11%) and Saksoft (down 10.21%).

 

Out of the 50 stocks listed on the Nifty, 38 stocks settled in the positive. The key gainers were Tata Motors (up 4.44%); Bharti Airtel (up 4.34%); Cipla (up 3.45%); IDFC (up 2.80%) and Wipro (up 2.74%). Among the losers were HUL (down 1.82%); ONGC (down 1.42%); ITC (down 1.27%); HDFC Bank (down 0.96%) and GAIL India (down 0.92%).

 

Markets in Asia recovered from early losses and settled higher on signs of recovery in the region on the back of a growth in China’s manufacturing sector. China's official PMI rose to 50.2 in October from 49.8 in September, , pointing to expanded factory activity in the world's second-largest economy.

 

The Shanghai Composite surged 1.72%; the Hang Seng climbed 0.83%; the KLSE Composite gained 0.16%; the Nikkei 225 advanced 0.21% and the Taiwan Weighted rose 0.19%. On the other hand, the Jakarta Composite fell 0.34%; the Straits times declined 0.39% and the Seoul Composite dropped 0.71%.

 

At the time of writing, the key European indices were up between 0.40% and 0.62% and the US stock futures were mixed with a negative bias.

 

Back home, foreign institutional investors were net buyers of stocks totalling Rs248.48 crore and domestic institutional investors were net sellers of equities amounting to Rs97.84 crore.

 

Larsen & Toubro (L&T) today said that it has received new orders of over Rs1,063 crore across various segments in October. The stock rose 0.19% to close at Rs 1,630 on the NSE.

 

Hexaware Technologies is scouting for acquisitions as it plans to enter into manufacturing. The acquisition could be either to strengthen the existing verticals or entering a new vertical. Hexaware has presence in three verticals--banking and capital market, travel and transportation and healthcare and insurance. The stock fell 0.89% to close at Rs111.15 on the NSE.

User

VAT on sale of under-construction flats in Maharashtra: All you need to know

Advocate Mohana Nair explains the Value-Added Tax (VAT) issue for homeowners and says that developers should recover tax from customers only after the issues is finally decided by the Supreme Court. She also points out that the Bombay High Court order leaves room for a strong challenge

 
VAT (Value-Added Tax) is tax levied on sale of goods. The Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002, (MVAT Act) defines ‘sale’ under Section 2(24). Explanation 6(ii) to Section 2(24) states that the transfer of goods (whether as goods or some other form) involved in the execution of a works contract, would amount to a sale of goods within Maharashtra state. But there were many further changes and complications added. 
 
The MVAT Act was amended with effect from 20 June 2006 by inserting the following words at the end of the Explanation b (ii):  “namely an agreement for carrying out for cash, deferred payment or other valuable consideration, the building, construction, manufacture, processing, fabrication, erection, installation, fitting out, improvement, modification, repair or commissioning of any movable or immovable property”. In 2007, in another amendment of the MVAT Act, the word ‘namely’ was substituted by the word ‘including’. 
 
Rule 58(1) of the MVAT Act provides that the value of the goods at the time of transfer of property in goods involved in the execution of a works contract may be determined by effecting various deductions from the value of the entire contract including labour and service charges, amount paid to sub-contractors, design and architect’s fees, etc.  
 
Subsequently, a sub-rule (lA) was inserted after Rule 58(1) to clarify that in the case of construction contracts, the value of the goods at the time of transfer would be calculated after making deduction under sub-rule l as well as deduction under sub-rule 1A being the cost of the land, from the total agreement value, where the cost of the land was to be determined in accordance with the guidelines prepared under the Bombay Stamp Act (Determination  of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995, as applicable on lst January of the year in which the sale of property is registered and provided that the deduction towards the cost of land under the said sub-rule would not exceed 70% of the agreement value.
 
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of K Raheja Development Corporation Vs State of Karnataka that a contract for construction (development) of a unit is a works contract within the meaning of the term defined in Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, so long as the agreement is entered into before the construction is complete. Based on this judgement, the Maharashtra government, on 7 February, 2007 issued a trade circular clarifying that the transfer of property after 20 June, 2006, irrespective of whether the agreement was signed prior to that date, would be governed by the amended definition of ‘sale’. The circular also clarified that if the agreement of sale is entered into after the flat or unit is already constructed, there would be no works contract and no VAT would be payable.
 
Then, on 9 July 2010 the Maharashtra government came out with a composition scheme under VAT would amount to 1% of the agreement amount, if the agreement was entered into after 1st April, 2010.
 
The Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry and various builders’ associations challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(24) of the MVAT Act, 2002, as amended in 2006 and 2007 as well as the rules and trade circulars issued by the government. Writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court and in a common judgement on 10 April 2012, the court dismissed the petition with no order as to costs. The court’s conclusion was based on various Supreme Court judgements that held that composite contracts are permitted to be made divisible by isolating the ‘sale’ elements from that of works contract. The Bombay High Court held that where there is a transfer of property in goods, whether as goods or in any other form, involved in the execution of a works contract, even if cost of land is included in the agreement value, the transaction would be described as a works contract. Further, that so long as the contract provides obligation of contract for works and meets the basic description of a works contract, it must be described as such, even if it contains sale of land along with it.
 
After this judgement, the Maharashtra government issued a trade circular on 6 August 2012 specifying the time in which developers should register themselves under the Act and pay the tax. It also said that a compounding fee of Rs5,000 only would be payable for the entire period when the developers were not registered under MVAT and they could apply for administrative relief from  payment of interest and penalty.  
 
The developers and other petitioners filed Special Leave Petitions (SLP) in the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court order. The apex court, while permitting this and staying coercive recovery of tax, interest and penalty, had directed that those petitioners liable to pay tax under the MVAT Act should pay it on or before 31 October, 2012. The Supreme Court further held that in case amendment to Section 2(24) of the MVAT Act is held to be unconstitutional, then the tax deposited/paid by the developers shall be returned along with interest as directed by the court. The time for registration of developers under the MVAT Act was extended from 16th August to 15 October, 2012 triggering a mad rush by developers to comply in the past two weeks.   
 
This means that in constructions completed between 20 June 2006 and 31 March 2010, developers would be liable to pay VAT on the agreement value after making several deductions therefrom as provided in the MVAT Rules and from 1 April, 2010 they could also choose to pay VAT @ 1% of the agreement value.
 
Several developers had taken indemnities or commitments from flat purchasers to pay the VAT liability when it arose. After the interim order of the Supreme Court they have been working at recovering it from home buyers before the 31st October deadline.  Some developers have even demanded interest on the VAT liability, claiming that it has not been stayed under the apex court’s interim order.
 
The problem is that there is lack of clarity about the amount of VAT payable because the calculation is complicated. There are three methods of computing the liability for the period 20 June 2006 to 31March 2010; and one more method is available thereafter.  Neither the developers nor flat purchasers are clear about the exact liability. The Builder’s Association of India and others filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking clarity, but the petitions were dismissed and the trade circulars issued by the government were held to be valid and binding. The high court also ruled that the assessing officer in each case would decide if a particular agreement for sale is a works contract or not, and VAT would not be payable if it is not a works contract. 
 
It would, therefore, appear that even after the 31st October deadline for paying VAT, the actual amount that is finally payable is still to be decided. This means that the flat-owners’ liability to reimburse developers will arise only after the Supreme Court’s final ruling. And, in any circumstances, this cannot be more than what the developers themselves have paid as VAT by 31 October, 2012.  If the Supreme Court sets aside relevant provisions of MVAT Act or modifies or reduces the VAT, developers need to commit to return the money collected from home buyers before the court’s final decision.  
 
The Supreme Court will now have to decide whether the “Agreement for Sale” of a flat on which instalments are due after 20 June, 2006 (irrespective of whether the agreement was signed prior to that date) is a works contract or is a contract for the purchase of an immovable property (flat). The following facts suggest that the Bombay High Court order holding such an agreement is a works contract, is incorrect for the following reasons:
 
(a)  The flat purchaser has no say in the purchase of land, the structural design, building plan or amenities provided by the developer. S/he has only selected a particular flat, signed the purchase agreement in the format provided by the developer and paid for it in instalments as set out in the agreement.  Just because the instalments were based on the stages of construction of the building, it would not convert the agreement for purchase of a flat into a works contract.
 
(b)  The Maharashtra government’s decision to levy VAT on under-constructions flats was based on the Supreme Court Judgement in K Raheja Development Corporation Vs State of Karnataka.  However, the major difference in the case before the Supreme Court then and that before the Bombay High Court, was that in Karnataka and other southern states, (unlike Maharashtra), the developer or land owners sells an undivided interest in land to prospective purchasers under a sale deed on which stamp duty is paid. Thereafter, the developer and flat purchaser enter into an agreement for construction of the flat. In such a case, the agreement is in fact a works contract. This is not the case in Maharashtra, where the flat is sold along with right to land and the agreement for such sale of flat is a sale of immovable property and not a works contract by any stretch of the imagination.
 
(c)  Another pertinent point is that in Maharashtra, stamp duty is paid on the entire agreement value for the sale of flat. If this agreement is to be treated as a works contract it must be split into a contract for sale of goods used in construction, contract for services of labour, etc and contract for sale of land. VAT would be payable on the portion attributed to sale of goods, service tax would be payable on contract for service and stamp duty on land value alone. By now calling upon developers (and indirectly flat purchasers) to pay VAT and Service-tax (which has been levied by Central Government and is presently stayed by court) on certain portions of the agreement value and stamp duty on the entire agreement value, the flat purchases have been taxed twice over for the same property/services.
 
(d)  Bombay High Court itself has held (and the same has been upheld by the Supreme Court) that an agreement for sale of a flat under MoFA is an agreement under which immovable property is transferred and so is liable for payment of stamp duty on agreement value.  Having held that it is sale of immovable property, it cannot now be held to be a works contract and, therefore, divisible into three parts as has been done under the present Bombay High Court judgement merely because the sale consideration is payable in instalments based on stages of construction of the building in which the flat is situated.
 
Thus there is a very high possibility of Supreme Court setting aside the Bombay High Court judgement and striking down the provisions of MVAT Act by which VAT is levied on flats under construction.  Further several queries remain as to the calculation of VAT payable.  It is, therefore, advisable that till all these issues are resolved and the amount payable by each flat purchaser if at all, is decided finally by the Supreme Court, the flat purchasers do call upon the developers to pay the amount due as the developers deem correct before 31 October 2012 and claim the same from the flat owners after the Supreme Court has passed the final order as to whether the VAT is payable and if yes, to what extent.
 

The three ways in which VAT payable could be determined for the period 20th June 2006 to 31st March 2010 are: 

OPTION 1: As per rule 58 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 the sale price may be determined after deducting from the agreement value, the value of land, labour, charges for planning, designing, architects fees, hire charges of machinery, etc. The tax is computed on the value arrived as above.  The tax computed as above is reduced after considering the tax paid on the purchases of building material (i.e. input tax credit). The tax so determined is required to be finally paid.
 
OPTION 2: The rule 58 also provides for the standard deduction at 30%.  The deduction towards the land value is taken from the total agreement value, the sales price is computed by further taking standard deductions (@ 30%) as provided in sub-rule 1. The tax is computed after applying the schedule rate of tax on sales price so arrived. The tax computed as above is reduced after considering the tax paid on the purchases of building material (i.e. input tax credit). The tax so determined is required to be finally paid.

OPTION 3: The Section 42(3) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act provides for tax at the rate of 5% on the entire contract value. The developer may opt for this and calculate the tax liability at the rate of 5%. This tax liability is reduced by the amount of taxes paid on purchases i.e. Input Tax Credit subject to maximum of 4%.  The balance tax liability so computed is to be discharged.
 
(Mohana Nair is an Advocate practicing in the Bombay High Court. She is a  Partner at JMB Partners, Advocates & Notaries and is known for her willingness to take up socially relevant issues and causes on behalf of NGOs on a pro bono basis)
 

 

User

COMMENTS

GEORGE P.V

2 years ago

I have purchased a ®istered a flat in New Mumbai on 9th Feb 2010 which was under construction and I have not paid any MVAT or Service Tax at the time of booking/registration

Now Developer has requested to pay MVAT @3.75%and Service Tax @1% before 31st March 2014

Please advise me whether I have to pay any of the above tax as my flat was registered before 31st March 2010

GEORGE P V

Gaurav Goyal

2 years ago

purchased flat in oct 13 of rs 4100000 including service tax, paid 600000 as booking amount enterted into aggrement for apply of loan, loan sanctioned in a month paid rs 1200000 as part payment ,after three mont another payment of rs 500000 after two month rs 500000 part payment total 2800000 has been paid now the bulder offer final payment and includes 5% vat on 41 lac who has to pay and on what amount.

Atchyuta Rao

2 years ago

what is the final verdict from supreme court on payment of VAT for flat purchases between june 2006 and march 2010 in state of MAHARASHTRA?

Atchyuta Rao

2 years ago

what is the final verdict from supreme court on payment of VAT for flat purchases between june 2006 and march 2010 in state of MAHARASHTRA?

Atchyuta Rao

2 years ago

What is the final verdict of the supreme court regarding the payment of VAT from flat purchaser point of view. The builder has made a "agreement of sale" in the early stages of construction in 2009 i had paid stamp duty and registration charges, after completion he gave a possession of the flat along with a letter stating that i have paid all my dues. Possession of flat was done in 2011 but i did not do my second conveyance deed agreement till 2013 and ever since the VAT issue cropped up, the builder has been postponing the "conveyance deed" agreement and now refusing to do the agreement until i pay VAT. I am not sure whether i should pay the VAT and complete the conveyance deed or wait...
What does Supreme court judgement say?

Raju Anbhorkar

3 years ago

I have bought a flat in Sept 2011 resale. First buyer has bought it in 2009. But has not paid VAT & he is refusing to pay, now the builder/developer is asking me to pay the same. That too 5% of the agreement value. Kindly let me know the amended rules.

Anurag Bhatewara

4 years ago

If land owner is getting some flats/ builtup area as consideration of development right, and he sold that falt/built area before completion then who is liable for payment of Vat as per Maharashtra Vat Act? Land owner or Builder?

Anurag Bhatewara

4 years ago

If land owner is getting some flats/ builtup area as consideration of development right, and he sold that falt/built area before completion then who is liable for payment of Vat? Land owner or Builder?

Amit Sawant

4 years ago

I am from Badlapur, Dist Thane. My builder has asked me to pay 4.09 % Vat on entire sale agreement value. The amount is coming around 120804. What Can & should I do now? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
[email protected]

Prem Chhatpar

4 years ago

Pl. take into account the judgments in the case of Marathi Bandhkam (WP 8121 of 2012) and Ashok Gokani (WP Stamp number 2405 of 2012) both dated 30/10/2012 delivered at 2 p.m. (immediately after MCHI / BAI's judgments seeking minor reliefs in calculations). The Court has ruled that the very Trade Circular 14T of 2012 on the basis of which Builders have collected taxes is open to interpretation and is not binding on the Assessing Officers, who have to decide in a quasi judicial manner, on the facts of each case, whether a particular contract is a works contract or not. This legal position has been conceded by the Advocate General also. Hence, it was hasty and premature on the part of the Builders to conclude that all was lost and everything hinged on the fate of their Special Leave petition pending in the Supreme Court, which is only on the constitutional validity of the amendment to the definition of Sale. Individual transactions are required to be assessed and facts placed on record for the Court to assume jurisdiction to decide the issue.

Santosh Kanekar

4 years ago

The article lays out the law in detail but does not simplify the action home owners need to take besides saying wait till Supreme court gives verdict. Article should say If you are flat owner before 2006 then this, if post 2006 then this. Also what if the flat has changed hands betwee 2006 and now, who pays or does not pay?

Doshi

4 years ago

Great Article But Builders are pressuring buyers to pay up MVAT. Most of the Ad-hoc committeee members are aproching builders to understand the calculations before making any decision to pay. As such once paid - refund will not be given by builders if the Supreme Court overturns the High Court order or modifies it. In Pune - Builders are collecting 5% MVAT on payments / installments made after June 20th 2006. Society formation still pending and they keep stalling due to some reason or other. What a common man suppose to do? As a buyer in April 2006, except downpayment all other payments are charged to us. Where do you arrange for fund up to 1.75 lac.? Any Ideas.

Max Life Retirement Plans: Are they worth it?

Max Life Partner Plus is true to the company logo “Your Partner for Life”. The product will literally tie you for a lifetime to give any returns. Max’s immediate annuity product offer rates half of what is offered by most players. Is this retirement planning or ruining your retirement?

Three years ago Suresh Sawant (name changed) purchased Max Life (formerly called Max New York Life) Partner Plus in the name of his daughter, who was 15 years old. The product was sold by friendly neighbour’s housewife, who also dabbles in Amway, the controversial multilevel company marketing highly expensive consumer products. The premium payment term is 20 years with policy term of whopping 60 years. Premium of Rs5,000 per year gave SA (sum assured) of Rs67,444. Suresh’s daughter does not need life insurance, but that’s lesser of Suresh’s worry.
 

When Suresh’s daughter turns 61, she will start receiving Rs5,058 per year for 15 years. What is the value of Rs5,058 per year after 45 years? It is a mere Rs104 at an inflation of 9% per annum. At age 75 years, Suresh’s daughter will get SA of Rs67,444 (again a meaningless real value of Rs383 after 60 years). The bonus declaration is prerogative of insurance company and hence Suresh and his daughter will be at complete mercy of the insurer for an extraordinary amount of time.
 

Based on the 6% and 10% benefit illustration allowed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), the non-guaranteed returns may be Rs7,20,971 to Rs34,96,396. It can be lower than Rs7,20,971 as the only guarantee is Rs67,444. Assuming non-guaranteed return of 8%, the corpus at the end of 60 years will be Rs16,24,353. Adding Rs5058 paid for 15 years (61-75 age) will be Rs17,00,223.
 

If Suresh had put the premium of Rs5,000 in a recurring deposit (RD) renewed for 20 years (same as premium payment term) and then put the corpus in a fixed deposit (FD) renewed for 40 years, Suresh’s daughter would have got guaranteed Rs49,70,783 assuming only 8% p.a. interest rate —290% more!



Such an extreme long-term life insurance product will certainly see many surrendered policies. While we suggest that blindly surrendering may be a blunder and insurance companies make huge profits from surrendered policies (Read the cover story of the 8 March 2012 Moneylife issue ) in the case of Suresh, surrender makes sense if he (or rather his daughter) is not willing to stick for the extraordinary long-term of 60 years. It will save them from throwing good money on a wrong product. The guaranteed surrender value of traditional products is atrocious. You get only 30% of the premium paid minus first year’s premium. It surely makes for decent profits for the insurer.
 

At this time, Suresh is the nominee for the policy. If the policy is continued, at some point his daughter will have to nominate someone else (her future spouse or children) as almost certainly, Suresh who is in his 40s will not be around after 60 years. God knows what will be the name of Max Life after 60 years.
 

The policy document has a nice standard letter and signature of Analjit Singh, founder and chairman of Max India Limited. “The company agrees to pay the benefits under this policy on the happening of the insured event, while this policy is in-force”. It is surely a policy that will take lots of efforts to keep in-force.
 

When Max Life has set entry age of 91 days to 55 years for Partner Plus, what can we expect from Max Life‘s “Aapke Sachche Advisors”? The advertisement campaign message is that mis-selling is a thing of past. Max Life advisors are supposed to give right life insurance advice, great tips and much more. Can the advise be sachcha if the product is jhootha?
 

Max Life Partner Plus offers customers from age of three months to 55 years opportunity to reap benefits at age 75 years along with meagre guaranteed money-back benefits. Does a baby of three months really need life insurance and that too wait for a whopping 75 years to get endowment benefits? That’s a wait of a lifetime for something not worth waiting. In an era wherein even the insurance company partner (New York Life) has parted ways after a decade, why is the product still sold to someone who is made to wait for seven decades under the guise of retirement planning? The product slogan of “Retirement ho toh aisa” may just throw a nasty surprise on you.
 

The other retirement product offered by Max Life today is Immediate Annuity product. You will be astonished that Max Life’s immediate annuity rates are half of what is offered by most insurance companies. The “return of purchase price” option gives the beneficiaries the purchase price after the death of the annuitant; the purchase price is locked for the annuitant as there is no surrender option in annuity product. A gullible saver may just fall for Max Life‘s “Aapke Sachche Advisors” to have corpus locked at half the market annuity rate for a lifetime. It is high time Max Life revises its paltry annuity rates or IRDA forces Max Life to do so. It’s not just an imperfect product; its horrendous product.
 

Max Life Immediate Annuity product will surely give you exactly the opposite of what it claims on its website advertisement: “A powerful annuity plan to meet your post retirement financial needs, ensuring you absolute peace of mind in the golden years of your life”.
 

Read the cover story of 15 December 2011 Moneylife issue for details of annuity products

User

COMMENTS

suresh

1 year ago


I have purchased this policy in 2011 and paying 30k/annum premium please let me know what you did? you continued or surrendered I was misled by the agents (who is my ex boss wife) i always thought its my retirement plan and my son is nominee, now i realised its my sons retirement plan, that sounds ridiculous to me, please suggest as i do not want to continue this policy

Ruchi Gulati

3 years ago

I purchased this policy in 2008 have paid regular annual premiums of Rs 30,000/- since then(20yr premiums). I am 41yr old.my concern - shall i continue or withdraw

REPLY

suresh

In Reply to Ruchi Gulati 1 year ago

hi Ruchi
I also have purchased this policy in 2011 and paying 30k/annum premium please let me know what you did? you continued or surrendered I was misled by the agents (who is my ex boss wife) i always thought its my retirement plan and my son is nominee, now i realised its my sons retirement plan, that sounds ridiculous to me

suresh

In Reply to Ruchi Gulati 1 year ago

hi Ruchi
I also have purchased this policy in 2011 and paying 30k/annum premium please let me know what you did? you continued or surrendered I was misled by the agents (who is my ex boss wife) i always thought its my retirement plan and my son is nominee, now i realised its my sons retirement plan, that sounds ridiculous to me

arun

3 years ago

15 year back interest rates was close to 14% now they are 8% how anyone can calculate 8% for next 20 yrs?

arun

3 years ago

you can't make 20 year FD and RD. if you are going to for 20 year FD you will get only 4-5% return. return is not tax free so don't forget to calculate tax on interest.

Hasan abbas

4 years ago

haha nice hard hitting article. i am ur subscriber since few months but i wish i knew of this website earlier

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)