Mr Jaitley, Depositors Don’t Have a Union, It’s Easy to Take them for a Ride

Fostering Public Leadership - World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit 2010

 

The finance minister, Arun Jaitley is at it again, demanding lower interest rates. As he said, late last week: “Now, whether domestic savings are only to be used by such instruments which give you a higher return and create an interest regime which is extremely costly and makes the economy sluggish, or higher returns are to be got from such instruments as funds, bonds, shares.”

Jaitley further said: A lot of them have also an element of secured investment in them which can give people a very respectable return itself.”

Normally, Jaitley’s statements on interest rates  in the past have been as straightforward as, I demand lower interest rates. But this time around, he has made a long and a convoluted statement, which basically means the same.

So what Jaitley is saying here is that people save money with banks. The interest rates on bank fixed deposits are high. Given that interest rates on bank fixed deposits are high, the interest rates on bank loans are high. Since interest rates on bank loans are high, people and companies are not borrowing, and this makes the overall economy sluggish.

Hence, people should be investing their money in mutual funds, bonds and shares that finance projects and economic activity.

This is what happens when people make statements without looking at numbers. In fact, growth in retail lending carried out by banks in 2015-2016, has been the highest since 2009-2010. So clearly retail lending is growing at a very robust pace. The so called high interest rates on bank lending, clearly hasn’t had much of an impact on this front.

DatesRetail lending growth
March 20, 2015 to March 18, 201619.40%
March 21, 2014 to March 20, 201515.50%
March 22, 2013 to March 21, 201415.50%
March 23, 2012 to March 22, 201314.70%
March 25, 2011 to March 23, 201212.90%
March 26, 2010 to March 25,201117.00%
March 27, 2009 to March 26, 20104.10%
Source: Sectoral Deployment of Credit Data, RBI

 

The problem has been in bank lending to industry. The lending growth to industry in 2015-2016 slowed down to around 2.7 per cent. In comparison, it grew by more than 23 per cent, during the go go years between 2009 and 2011. But a lot of that lending was to crony capitalists.

Banks have not been lending to industry, because of all the bad loans that they have accumulated on the lending to industry, in the past. Also, many corporates continue to be heavily leveraged, even though things did improve a little in 2015-2016.

As the RBI Financial Stability Report released in late June points out: “An analysis of the current trends in debt servicing capacity and leverage of ‘weak’ companies [defined as those having interest coverage ratio (ICR)<1]was undertaken…[It] indicated some improvement in 2015-16. The analysis shows that 15.0 per cent of companies were ‘weak’ in the select sample as at end March 2016, compared to 17.8 per cent in March 2015. The share of debt of these ‘weak’ companies also fell to 27.8 per cent of total debt in the second half of 2015-16 from 29.2 per cent in the second half of 2014-15. However, the debt to equity ratio of these ‘weak’ companies increased to 2.0 from 1.8.”

Interest coverage ratio is the ratio of the earnings before interest and taxes of a company during a period divided by the interest that it needs to pay on its accumulated debt during the same period. This basically reflects the ability of the company to finance its debt. An interest coverage ratio of less than one basically means that the company is not making enough money to be able to repay the interest on its accumulated debt.

The RBI categorises these companies as weak companies. The proportion of these companies fell to 15 per cent as on March 31, 2016, in comparison to 17.8 per cent earlier. Nevertheless, these companies still had around 27.8 per cent of the total bank debt. Further, their debt to equity ratio deteriorated to 2 from 1.8.

Given that many companies continue to be highly leveraged along with the fact that they are not making enough money to be able to service their accumulated debt, it is but natural that banks do not want to lend to these companies.

The purpose of any bank is not to get the economy going by lending. It is to lend money to customers who are likely to return it. At the same time, they need to charge an adequate rate of interest, which basically takes the credit risk (or the chances of a default) of customers into account.

Also, Jaitley’s statement seems to suggest that corporates are just waiting to borrow money and expand. And the high interest rates of banks are stopping them from doing so. The data clearly suggests otherwise.

As per the Order Books, Inventories and Capacity Utilisation Survey (OBICUS) survey carried out by the RBI, for the period October to December 2015, the capacity utilisation of 1,058 manufacturing companies which responded to the survey, stood at 72.5 per cent. This was slightly better than the period July to September 2015, when it had stood at 71.4 per cent.

But on the whole capacity utilisation continues to be low. More than one fourth of manufacturing capacity is still not being used. In fact, the situation is even worse than this in some sectors. As Manasi Swamy of the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy points out in a research note titled Why should manufacturers invest more?: “Large manufacturing industries like cement, steel, sponge iron and aluminium worked at an estimated capacity utilisation of 65 per cent or lower in 2015-16. Automobile companies too have enough capacity to meet any increase in demand. The passenger cars industry is running at 63 per cent capacity utilisation level, two-wheelers at 76 per cent, commercial vehicles at as low as 37 per cent and tractors at 63 per cent. Capacity utilisation levels in industries like paper and textiles are also quite low.”

Over and above this, the return on capital employed for the manufacturing sector has fallen from 11.7 per cent in 2006-2007 to 3.8 per cent in 2014-2015, Swamy points out. In this scenario it is safe to say that industry is also not interested in borrowing more to expand. They may welcome lower interest rates because that will help them service their existing debt in a better way. But that is another issue altogether.

Also, Jaitley seems to suggest that investing in stocks and mutual funds leads to entrepreneurs being able to raise capital. This doesn’t hold true anymore. Public issues these days are basically about investors trying to sell out their stakes in companies. It is rarely about entrepreneurs funding expansion by selling shares. These investors can be venture capitalists, private equity firms or even the government.

Further, banks raise deposits to give out loans. And these loans are also helpful for the economy. If retail lending is growing at close to 20 per cent, it is benefiting vehicle companies, consumer durable companies, as well as real estate companies. What about that? How is that not helping the economy?

Also, the basic question that Jaitley needs to answer is that if the Indian economy grew by 7.6 per cent in 2015-2016, how is the economic growth sluggish? The finance minister cannot have it both ways. When he wants to project the government in good light he says, India is the fastest growing major economy in the world. When he wants lower interest rates and show the RBI in a bad light, he says the economic growth is sluggish.

Another point I wanted to make is that the government can play a huge role in bringing down interest rates further. Currently, the difference between fixed deposit interest rates and the interest rate offered on post office small savings schemes is anywhere from 40 to 160 basis points. One basis point is one hundredth of a percentage. Banks compete with post office schemes when it comes to taking on deposits and cannot keep cutting interest rates on deposits beyond a point.

Further, I think Mr Jaitley must clearly not have forgotten all the ruckus that was created when the government tried to cut the interest rate on the Employees Provident Fund(EPF) by 5 basis points to 8.7 per cent. This would have meant that contributors to the EPF would have got a lower interest of Rs 50 less per lakh, during the course of the year. To break it down further, it would have meant a lower interest of Rs 4.5 per month per lakh, for those who contribute to the EPF. The government couldn’t even push this through.

The current interest rate on EPF is 8.8 per cent. This is close 100-180 basis points higher than the interest rate on fixed deposits, without taking into account that interest rate on fixed deposits is taxed, whereas interest on EPF is tax free. Why should there be such a huge difference in interest rates? How about some fairness on this front Mr Jaitley?

Of course, those who contribute to EPF are an organised lot and can create a lot of hungama if the government decides to cut the interest rate. The same cannot be said for a normal depositor who is placing his money in the bank in the hope that it grows in the years to come. The depositors do not have a union and hence, it’s easy to take them for a ride.

The column was originally published on the Vivek Kaul Diary on July 13, 2016

 

Why is Arvind Panagariya Cherry Picking Data to Show Modi Govt in Good Light?

220px-Arvind_Panagariya

The Narendra Modi government will be completing two years next week. Given this, currently there is a lot of propaganda on. The finance minister Arun Jaitley has been giving interviews highlighting the good performance of the government.

The Vice Chairman of NITI Aayog, economist Arvind Panagariya, has also been writing columns in newspapers talking about the good show of the Modi government. There is nothing wrong with this. It is the right of every government to highlight what it thinks is the good work that it has done, in the best possible way.

And as long as governments don’t place full page advertisements in newspapers, highlighting their achievements by wasting taxpayer’s money, I have nothing against the entire idea of the government talking about its good work. Please talk about it as much as you want to, but don’t waste my taxes in the process.

One of the points that Panagariya made in a column in the Business Standard was about village electrification. The general impression is that the government has done good work on this front.

As he wrote: “In power, the government has already electrified 6,816 villages in the last two years compared with 5,189 villages in the three years before that.”

Take a look at the following table. It gives the number of villages electrified every year, over the last decade.

 

YearsVillages electrified
2005-20069819
2006-200728706
2007-20089301
2008-200912056
2009-201018374
2010-201118306
2011-20127934
2012-20132587
2013-20141197
2014-20151405
2015-2016                                        7128*
Source: Annual Report Rural Electrification Corporation 2014-2015
* Press release put out by Press Information Bureau dated April 4, 2016

 

Let’s run the numbers for what Panagariya said. In the last two years 8,533 villages (7128 villages in 2015-2016 and 1405 villages in 2014-2015) have been electrified. Panagariya says 6,866 villages. In the three years before that 11,718 villages were electrified (1197 in 2013-2014, 2587 in 2012-2013 and 7934 in 2011-2012) which is more than the villages electrified in the last two years and not less as Pangariya suggests.

So where did Panagariya get his numbers from? I think he has gotten the years mixed up while making the calculation. In the years 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, a total of 5,189 villages were electrified. This is the same as Panagariya’s number. But Panagariya has essentially suggested years 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. This is incorrect.

I guess basically what he wanted to compare was the performance of the government on the village electrification front in 2015-2016, with that of previous three years, i.e. 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. In 2015-2016, the government electrified 7128 villages, which is close to the 6,816 number that Panagariya offers, for the last two years. This difference could be primarily because end of the year data keeps getting updated I guess.

The Modi government has put up a decent show as far village electrification in 2015-2016 is concerned. More villages were electrified in 2015-2016, than were electrified in the three years before that. This is what Panagariya I guess wanted to say. But he got the years mixed up.

Nevertheless, let’s look at the performance on the village electrification front between 2005-2006 and 2011-2012. In each of the years more villages were electrified than in 2015-2016. In 2005-2006, 28,706 villages were electrified, which is four times the number last year. Hence, Panagariya is essentially cherry-picked data in order to show the Modi government and the power minister Piyush Goyal in good light.

Also, as I have mentioned in the past, if we keep comparing the economic performance of the Modi government to the second half of the second term of the Manmohan Singh government, things are definitely going to look better. Nevertheless, that is too low a benchmark to set. Anything will look better in comparison to those years.

Further, during the year 2014-2015, the Modi government governed for to ten months. During the course of the year only 1,405 villages were electrified. This can’t be totally held against the government because every government needs time to start operating. Also, given the fact that the number of villages electrified in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 were very low, some time would have been needed to get the system going again.

It needs to be mentioned here that as the number of villages to be electrified comes down, it becomes more and more difficult to electrify the villages and the same pace cannot be maintained. If one takes this factor into account, electrifying more than 7,000 villages in a single year, is not a bad performance.

But trying to pass it off as something extraordinary is really not done.

Discslosure: The basic idea for this column came after reading Amitabh Dubey’s column Arvind Panagariya Spins an Infrastructure Tale on Chunauti.org

The column was originally published in the Vivek Kaul Diary on Equitymaster.com

Oil Prices Are Rising Again: What Will Modi Govt Do Now?

narendra_modi

In a little over a week, the Narendra Modi government will complete two years in office. The finance minister Arun Jaitley, has already started to give interviews in the media, highlighting the success of the Modi government on the economic front. The Vice Chairman of the NITI Aayog, Arvind Panagariya, has written columns around the same, as well.

What both of them haven’t really talked about is the oil price and its dramatic fall, during the time the Modi government has governed India. On May 26, 2014, the day Modi was sworn in as the prime minister, the price of Indian basket of crude oil was $ 108.05 per barrel. Nearly two years later, as on May 16, 2016, the price of the Indian basket of crude oil stood at $46.18 per barrel.

Interestingly, it even touched a low of $26.95 per barrel on February 12, earlier this year. This was a massive fall of 75%. The point being if this hadn’t happened, the finances of the Modi government would have gone for a toss totally. The petroleum subsidy number fell from Rs 92,000 crore in 2013-2014, to a little over Rs 60,000 crore in 2014-2015, to around Rs 30,000 crore in 2015-2016. For 2016-2017, around Rs 27,000 crore has been budgeted for the petroleum subsidy.

The government benefitted on two counts. First, it got a lower petroleum subsidy bill. Second, it captured a large part of this fall in oil price by increasing the excise duty on petrol and diesel. Between November 2014 and now, the excise duty on oil and petrol, has been increased nine times.

The total excise duty collected by the government on petrol and diesel in 2014-2015, had stood at around Rs 1,56,000 crore. This jumped by 59% to a little over Rs 2,48,200 crore in 2015-2016. Hence, lower oil prices were of huge benefit to the government. The state governments also cashed in by increasing the value added tax on petrol and diesel.

By doing this, the fall in the price of oil wasn’t passed on to the end consumers. The trouble is that now oil prices have started to go up again. Between February and mid-May, the price of the Indian basket for crude oil has gone up by more than 71%. As on May 16, 2016, it quoted at $46.18 per barrel.

In a scenario of falling oil prices, the government did not pass on the entire fall in oil prices to the end consumer. Hence, in a scenario of rising oil prices it shouldn’t pass on the entire increase to the end consumer as well by cutting down the excise duty on petrol and diesel. That will be a fair thing to do.

In an ideal world, the Modi government should have freed up the price of petrol and diesel totally, and let the international price of oil, decide the market price of petrol and diesel. If they had done that people would have adjusted to the idea of high oil prices, given that they would have seen low oil prices as well.

But that hasn’t turned out to be the case. The price of oil now is 57.3% lower than it was in May 2014. But the price of petrol and diesel has fallen by 17.4% and 12.9% only, in Mumbai.

Also, it is important to remember here that high oil prices can end up screwing the accounts of the government. This is simply because the government still subsidises the sale of cooking gas as well as kerosene oil.

Further, what does the government plan to do if oil prices continue to go up? If the government continues to raise petrol and diesel prices, I am sure there is going to be a public outcry.

This will happen simply because last time around when oil prices really went up, the end consumer did not have to pay for higher petrol and diesel prices. The oil marketing companies, the oil producing companies and the Manmohan Singh government bore the brunt of high oil prices. The consumer did not. This ended up screwing up the finances of the government.

Also, this time around the Modi government has benefitted tremendously from lower oil prices by raising excise duty on petrol and diesel. It had a tremendous opportunity to move towards a market driven price of petrol and diesel. But if it did that, it would have had to look for alternative sources of revenue.

It would no longer be possible for it to continue financing loss making public sector enterprises. This would mean that some ministers would have become totally jobless. It would have had to sell more shares in profitable public sector enterprises and so on. It would also have to look at ways for cutting down on frivolous expenditure that almost all governments indulge in. It would also have to sell its shares in the cigarette maker ITC, which it strangely continues to hang on to.

Of course, all these would have been difficult decisions and the government chose to latch on to the low hanging fruit of raising excise duty on petrol and diesel. A huge opportunity was missed out on.

Further, what is the government’s view on higher oil prices? As finance minister Arun Jaitley said in an interview to The Economic Times recently: “You see as far as the oil prices are concerned, this is one area where nobody has been able to predict, even reasonably what is going to happen. It is only after the event that people analyse what has happened. When the prices were close to a $120, nobody really thought that they will come down below 30. At 30, they said it would stabilise at 40, now it is 50.”

What Jaitley said was that oil prices cannot be predicted. This is a view that I have often maintained in the past. Nevertheless, after saying this, Jaitley went on to do exactly the opposite i.e. he tried to predict oil prices. As he said: “I think they are still range bound. And being range bound they are within the limits of what India can consider to be affordable and therefore unless there is some very alarming increase, which does not look likely at the moment, I think we are reasonably comfortable.

So Jaitley feels that there are no chances of any alarming increase in oil prices. He said this after explaining in detail that no one can predict oil prices. This prediction came after oil prices have risen by 71% in a little over three months.

As Philip Tetlock and Dan Gardner write in Superforecasting—The Art and Science of Prediction“Take the price of oil, long a graveyard topic for forecasting reputations. The number of factors that can drive the price up or down is huge—from frackers in the United States to jihadists in Libya to battery designers in Silicon Valley—and the number of factors that can influence those factors is even bigger.”

While, the government and those who run the government may not be able to predict oil prices, it is important that they think through what they plan to do if oil prices do continue to go up. This becomes especially important given that they did not pass on the fall in oil prices to the end consumer. Also, they are well and truly addicted to all the easy money coming in from raising the excise duty on petrol and diesel.

What is the Plan B of the Modi government? And more specifically, do they have one?

The column originally appeared in the Vivek Kaul Diary on May 18,2016

The PF problem: Why the govt is after your EPF money

EPFOLogo

The Narendra Modi government has tried initiating a few changes to the way the Employees’ Provident Fund(EPF) operates. And this hasn’t really gone down well with those who have accumulated their savings through EPF.

These moves are in line with what the finance minister Arun Jaitley referred to as “measures for moving towards a pensioned society,” in his February 2016, budget speech.

One such move has been the restriction on the complete withdrawal of EPF. In a notification dated February 10, 2016, the government had specified that an individual investing in EPF can withdraw only his contribution made to the EPF and the interest accumulated thereon, in case the individual is unemployed for a period of at least two months.

Up until now, a 100% withdrawal was possible. In fact, given the way the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation(EPFO) operated, one could withdraw 100% of the accumulated EPF even at the point of changing jobs. All an individual had to do was to declare that he or she was unemployed.

This loophole has now been plugged in with the introduction of the Universal Account Number(UAN). Earlier, the EPFO could not track the movement of an employee from one job to another, but with UAN that is possible.

In fact, with the new notification, premature withdrawal of 100% EPF corpus would become impossible. Further, the notification also increased the retirement age from 55 years to 58 years.

The change of not allowing to withdraw the full EPF, is in line with what Jaitley had talked about in his budget speech. The idea is to discourage individuals from withdrawing their accumulated EPF corpus. By doing this, the hope is that the individual will have enough money going around when he or she retires.

And at that point of time, the accumulated corpus can be used to generate a regular income after retirement i.e. a pension.

These changes haven’t gone down well with people who contribute to the EPF every month and there have been protests against it. Given this the notification specifying the changes has now been put in abeyance. As the labour minister Bandaru Dattareya told reporters today (April 19, 2016): “The notification will be kept in abeyance for three months till 31 July, 2016. We will discuss this issue with the stakeholders.”

In fact, a PTI news-report also points out that the labour ministry is contemplating allowing withdrawal of 100% of the corpus on grounds like marriage and education of children, purchase of house, serious illnesses etc.

The way the scheme is currently structured, it does not allow a 100% withdrawal for such things. The Section 68K of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme 1952, allows for withdrawal of up to 50% of the individual’s contribution and the interest accumulated thereon, “for his or her own marriage, the marriage of his or her daughter, son, sister or brother or for the post-matriculation education of his or her son or daughter.”

As far as medical emergencies are concerned, the amount that can be withdrawn from the EPF should not exceed, the individual’s “basic wages and dearness allowances for six months or his own share of contribution with interest in the Fund, whichever is less.”

News-reports suggest that these limits are likely to be withdrawn in the days to come. If something like that happens, it won’t be good for the society as a whole. The basic idea behind any provident or pension fund is to accumulate enough money so as to be able to live comfortably after retirement.

But if 100% withdrawals are allowed then this will not be possible. Hence, some withdrawals should be allowed, but allowing 100% withdrawals for weddings and education etc., is clearly not a great idea.

This did not matter earlier when people lived in joint families. But in the era of nuclear families and increasing life expectancy, it is important that those retiring from jobs have enough money for themselves.

Further, it needs to be pointed out that the current norms allow 100% withdrawal “on termination of service in the case of mass or individual retrenchment”. Of course, one is quitting the job to become an entrepreneur then a 100% withdrawal is not allowed. But big government schemes cannot be so flexible so as to meet the needs of everyone.

Anyone leaving the country is also allowed to withdraw 100% of the accumulated corpus. Further, those suffering from “total incapacity for work due to bodily or mental infirmity” can withdraw 100% of the corpus. So, the point being that the scheme is flexible “enough”.

Also, as a recent government clarification on the EPF pointed out: “The main category of people for whom EPF scheme was created are the members of EPFO who are within the statutory wage limit of Rs 15,000 per month.”

Hence, for those earning greater than Rs 15,000 per month and looking for the flexibility with their money, should essentially be negotiating with their employers to make a minimum contribution to the EPF and receiving their salaries under other heads.

To conclude, it is safe to say that the Modi government has essentially botched up the entire idea behind a pensioned society. Almost no effort has been made in order to explain the basic idea behind the phrase, which is actually a good one.

For a government which is pretty good at marketing itself that is rather ironical.

(Vivek Kaul is the author of the Easy Money trilogy. He can be reached at [email protected])

The column originally appeared in the Bangalore Mirror on April 20, 2016

Here is More Evidence on India’s Love for Black Money

rupee

In the budget speech made on February 28, 2013, the then finance minister P Chidambaram had said: “There are 42,800 persons – let me repeat, only 42,800 persons – who admitted to a taxable income exceeding Rs 1 crore per year.”

This statement caused a lot of hungama at that point of time. Recently, the revenue secretary Hasmukh Adhia made a similar sort of statement. “There are only 1.5 lakh individuals whose total income would be above Rs 50 lakh,” Adhia recently remarked.

This statement by Adhia has been largely ignored. It essentially implies two things: a) India is a poor country where very few people actually earn more than Rs 50 lakh. b) Very few Indians actually pay income tax and black money forms a major part of the Indian economy. Black money is money which has been earned, but on which tax has not been paid. While, there is no denying that India is a poor country, in this context the second option makes more sense.

In a country of close to 125 crore people, only 1.5 lakh individuals, or 0.012% of the population has an income of over Rs 50 lakh. This is a tad difficult to believe. The consumption patterns clearly prove otherwise.

One argument that can be made here is that many people earning over Rs 50 lakh are making money in forms that are tax-free, like capital gains and dividends from stocks. Dividend earned from stocks has been tax-free for a while now. In the budget presented in February earlier this year, the finance minister Arun Jaitley introduced a “tax at the rate of 10% of gross amount of dividend…payable by the recipients, that is, individuals, HUFs and firms receiving dividend in excess of Rs 10 lakh per annum.” (HUFs = Hindu Undivided Families).

While Chidambaram had used the phrase “taxable income”, Adhia just used the term “income”. So in Chidambaram’s case it is clear he meant that only 42,800 Indians had a taxable income of more than Rs 1 crore. Hence, there are more than 42,800 Indians making more than Rs 1 crore per year. This would include those who make money through capital gains and dividends from stocks, on which taxes need not be paid.

In Adhia’s case, he has just used the term “income”. Hence, the 1.5 lakh individuals who make more than Rs 50 lakh per year, would also include those who make money in forms, on which income tax does not have to be paid. It also includes those who make more than Rs 50 lakh per year, but whose taxable income is less than Rs 50 lakh, given that they make use of various deductions that are available.

Adhia’s statement was made in a certain context. In a notification put out on April 1, 2016, the ministry of finance had said: “With Assessment Year 2016-17, individuals and HUFs filing their returns of income in ITR-1, ITR-2, ITR-2A and ITR-4S, having income exceeding Rs.50 lakh will now be required to furnish information regarding assets and liabilities in Schedule-AL of the relevant ITR form.”

Basically those earning more than Rs 50 lakh would now have to declare their assets (cars, investments, property etc.) as well as liabilities (like loans being re-paid) while filing their income tax returns.

There were some protests against this move, which led Adhia to state that: “There are only 1.5 lakh individuals whose total income would be above Rs 50 lakh. This schedule in ITR only applies to ultra rich and will not affect the common man… 99.5 per cent taxpayers are not affected by this requirement. Only the ultra rich will have to give this information in their I-T Returns.”

On the face of it, this seems like another move on the part of the Narendra Modi government to crackdown on black money. While this might look like another move to tackle black money, to me it seems more like a classic bureaucratic exercise to harass those who are already paying income tax and following the law of the land.

The number 1.5 lakh is anyway so small that this lot of people is probably not in a position to hide its income given that most of it is tax deducted at source(TDS). Chances are that these individuals are either salaried and/or honest.

Hence, what is the point in making their income tax filings more complicated than it currently is? Is the chartered accountant(CA) lobby at work? Is it trying to ensure that filing income tax returns gets more complicated by the year, leading to more CAs being able to charge more?

I really don’t have answers for that. But in a country where conspiracy theories thrive, this one makes immense sense.

Also, from April 1, 2016, onwards, many high value transactions are to be reported to the income tax department.

These include: a) buying or selling of immovable property worth more than Rs 30 lakh. b) purchase of shares worth more than Rs 1 lakh or mutual funds worth more than Rs 2 lakh. c) payment of credit card bills more than Rs 2 lakh. d) investment of more than Rs 1 lakh in gold ETFs. e) investment of Rs 5 lakh or more in debentures or bonds of a company. f) cash deposit of more than Rs 10 lakh made into a savings bank account.

Hence, the government will have access to most of the information that it now wants from those earning more than Rs 50 lakh to declare in their income tax returns. Why is it still asking for this information? One possible explanation is that given the slow pace at which our bureaucracy works, the expectation is that this information will not be shared with the income tax department at a fast pace or on a regular basis. Hence, the department now wants the information coming to it directly. Again, I don’t have any evidence for this, but it makes for a good conspiracy theory.

Also, the moot question is what is the government doing to expand the tax base? Is it looking at the right places for people and institutions which are avoiding to pay income tax? Take the recent data on money supply released by the Reserve Bank of India.

Between March 2015 and March 2016, the currency with the public went up by 15% or Rs 2.08 lakh crore. Between March 2014 and March 2015, the jump had been 10.6% or Rs 1.33 lakh crore. So why this sudden jump?

The RBI governor Raghuram Rajan explained this in an interaction with the media after presenting the first monetary policy statement for this financial year on April 5. He explained that assembly elections are currently on in several states. Around this time, the cash in hands of the public increases.

As Rajan said: “you can guess as to reasons why…we also guess.” This increase is not only in the states that go to elections but also in neighbouring states. Having said that, this explains only a part of the increase.

This money that has gone out of the banking system to finance elections, is very easy to track. The income tax department can easily check if tax has been paid on this income. Typically, black money finances elections. But given that this money is financing assembly elections, and politicians are involved, the chances of anything like this happening are remote.

The column originally appeared on Vivek Kaul’s  Diary on April 7, 2016