Decoding Carried Interest: A Global and India Perspective

Anshul Prakash and Vinay Joy discuss India’s four new Labour Codes on wages, social security, industrial relations and workplace safety, replacing 29 central labour laws. The substantive provisions of all four codes are in effect - definitions, basis for computation of social security contributions and gratuity, timeline for payment of wages, and prohibition on engagement of contract labour in core business activities. However, the procedural framework still evolving, and State rules, schemes and notifications are pending. Until those are finalised, existing laws and rules continue to apply for procedural compliance. 

The episode breaks down what is effective now, what is pending, and answer some questions from an employer’s perspective. It examines the misconception around the definition of employee under the codes and what employers should focus on immediately.

Anshul and Vinay highlight the uniform definition of ‘wages’ under the Wages Code and employers need to check if their remuneration structure aligns with the 50% threshold rule for wage components. They emphasise that the government aims to ease compliance with digital interfaces and compounding of offences and not to immediately commence prosecution against employers. 

Anisha Chand and Anshuman Sakle discuss the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) landmark judgment in the Meta - WhatsApp 2021 Privacy Policy case, a decision that reshapes how data privacy and competition law intersect in India’s digital markets. 

While the Tribunal upheld Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) INR 213 crores (~USD 25 million) penalty for abuse of dominance on Meta, it set aside the five-year ban on data sharing between WhatsApp and Meta for advertising, offering critical clarity on the boundaries of lawful data use by dominant digital platforms.

In this episode, the conversation examines NCLAT’s recognition of data as a form of non-monetary price in zero-cost digital services, and how coercive consent, particularly when users lack real alternatives can distort competitive conditions. They analyse why data privacy and competition/ antitrust laws are complementary frameworks, the relevance of informed choice, and how dominant enterprises must design proportionate and transparent data-sharing policies. 

Anisha and Anshuman examine the ruling in light of global enforcement trends, where regulators are increasingly treating data practices central to competition law assessments. As digital markets become more data-driven, consent architecture, privacy design and competition/antitrust compliance must evolve together. The discussion highlights why this judgment is a turning point for digital platforms operating in India on responsible data governance and fair market conduct.

Prasenjit Chakravarti and Harsh Walia discuss how strong legal and digital hygiene is increasingly shaping deal value in today’s M&A landscape. While often overlooked in comparison to commercial metrics, compliance has become a direct value driver, influencing valuations, deal timelines, closing conditions and investor confidence. Companies demonstrating clean documentation, clear IP ownership, structured governance and robust data management are now commanding higher valuations and smoother negotiations. 

The conversation underscores two critical dimensions that investors should scrutinise. Legal hygiene spans well-documented ESOPs, properly papered inter-company loans, aligned shareholder and board documents and maintained corporate records - factors that can prevent escrows, delayed closings or reduced payouts. Digital hygiene, on the other hand, involves data hosting clarity, lawful consents, cloud/vendor contract robustness, cyber insurance adequacy and compliance with emerging data protection norms. Weaknesses in these areas have triggered valuation cuts, restructuring of deal terms or near-failures of cross-border transactions.

Prasenjit and Harsh emphasise that compliance readiness must precede a transaction, not follow diligence. Treating legal and digital compliance as a core enterprise value issue, rather than a box-ticking exercise, builds resilience and buyer trust. With investors increasingly pricing in compliance maturity, being “investor-ready” and not merely “pitch-deck ready” is what enables companies to protect value, accelerate deals, and secure a premium in competitive markets.

Smita Jha and Supratim Chakraborty discuss how RBI’s FREE-AI Framework is shaping the future of finance in India. As AI increasingly drives underwriting, credit scoring, fraud detection, process automation, customer support, risk management, and compliance, clear regulatory guidance has become essential. The framework lays out guiding principles, called Sutras, along with practical recommendations to ensure innovation proceeds with accountability and trust.

The conversation highlights the framework’s twin pillars, Innovation Enablement and Risk Mitigation, and their significance for financial institutions navigating an AI-driven landscape. Innovation Enablement focuses on building high-quality, interoperable financial-sector data infrastructure and AI sandboxes for safe testing, while Risk Mitigation emphasizes governance, board-approved AI policies, data lifecycle management, consumer protection, and transparent reporting.

Smita and Supratim also explore the convergence of finance and privacy. While AI enables efficiency and broader credit access, privacy safeguards are critical to prevent misuse of sensitive data. Embedding AI literacy, fostering a culture of governance, and proactively managing risks are essential to responsible adoption. The discussion demonstrates how innovation and accountability can coexist to strengthen India’s financial ecosystem.

Megha Agarwal and Shaily Gupta discuss the Supreme Court’s landmark Hyatt International ruling and its impact on Permanent Establishment exposure in India. The case arose when Hyatt, through its UAE tax resident entity, entered into Strategic Oversight Services Agreements with an Indian hotel owner. Indian tax authorities argued this created a Permanent Establishment, upheld by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court confirmed Hyatt had a fixed place PE in India due to sustained employee visits and substantive operational control over day-to-day hotel operations.

The Court clarified that profits attributable to the PE must be taxed as if it were an independent entity, making Hyatt liable even if the foreign enterprise reported overall losses. Megha and Shaily explore how the ruling extends beyond hospitality, affecting sectors such as apparel, electronics, quick-service restaurants, and any foreign brand owner exercising operational control in India.

The discussion highlights the importance of reviewing contracts, defining operational boundaries, documenting employee visits, and establishing strong compliance frameworks. The ruling underscores that substance prevails over form and urges multinational companies to reassess their India operations to manage tax risk effectively.