A ‘Cobrapost’ investigation into government filings reveals DLF Limited and five group entities paid ₹52.45 crore to a farming LLP after cancelling plot purchase agreements. No sale deed was registered, no property was transferred, and the payments were reportedly booked as professional fees, raising questions that could warrant regulatory scrutiny
A review of statutory filings, annual reports and records filed with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has raised serious questions over a series of transactions in which DLF Limited and five of its group entities paid ₹52.45 crore as “compensation” to a farming LLP (Limited Liability Partnership) promoted by members of the Chaurasia family of the Kamla Pasand Group, despite no land transaction ever being completed.
The records indicate that Blossom Farming Estates LLP, incorporated in February 2016 by Ayushi Chaurasia, Vijay Anand Chaurasia and Mayank Chaurasia, deposited ₹10 crore with six DLF entities under Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) for the proposed purchase of plots.
However, no sale deed was ever executed, nor was any property transferred in favour of the LLP. Yet, within less than four years, the LLP received ₹62.45 crore, comprising the return of its ₹10 crore deposit and an additional ₹52.45 crore described as compensation following cancellation of the MoUs.
The transactions, reconstructed from MCA filings and corporate disclosures, raise questions over the commercial rationale behind the payout, the accounting treatment adopted by the DLF entities, and whether the structure warrants scrutiny under the Companies Act, SEBI regulations, the Income-tax Act and FEMA.
How the transaction unfolded
According to corporate records, Blossom Farming Estates LLP was incorporated in February 2016. Within three months, its partners, along with Anand Kumar Chaurasia, infused ₹15.11 crore into the LLP, which then deposited ₹10 crore with six DLF group entities for the proposed purchase of plots. Separate MoUs were signed with DLF Limited, DLF Property Developers Ltd, DLF Real Estate Builders Ltd, DLF Residential Partners Ltd, DLF Residential Developers Ltd, and DLF Utilities Ltd.
The proposed property transactions, however, never materialised. Instead, the MoUs were cancelled. Corporate filings show that the LLP ultimately received ₹62.45 crore, including ₹52.45 crore as compensation, despite the absence of any completed real-estate transaction.
No sale deed, no transfer of property
One of the most striking aspects emerging from the records is that:
- no registered sale deed exists,
- no immovable property was transferred,
- yet substantial compensation was paid for cancellation of the MoUs.
Ordinarily, compensation in failed property transactions is linked to demonstrable contractual losses. In this case, the filings indicate a compensation amount exceeding five times the original deposit, without any evidence of title passing to the buyer.
Compensation booked as ‘professional fees’
Another unusual feature concerns the accounting treatment. According to MCA filings examined, the compensation paid by the DLF entities to Blossom Farming Estates LLP was reportedly recorded in their books as “professional fees” rather than compensation arising from cancellation of land purchase agreements.
If accurate, this accounting classification could invite scrutiny regarding the true nature of the expenditure and the disclosures made in statutory financial statements.
Payments split across six DLF entities
The compensation was not paid by a single company. Instead, it was distributed among six entities, with individual payouts reportedly remaining below major materiality thresholds. According to the filings:
- the smallest payment was approximately ₹3.44 crore,
- while the largest was ₹13.64 crore.
Investigators may examine whether splitting the payments across multiple entities had any accounting or disclosure implications.
Entities later disappeared through restructuring
Corporate restructuring followed soon after. Records indicate that DLF subsequently merged or reorganised several of the entities involved in the transactions, effectively removing them as separate reporting entities. While mergers and demergers are legitimate corporate exercises, such restructuring can make tracing historical transactions more difficult for investigators and shareholders.
Questions over the commercial rationale
According to corporate records, the overall transaction structure appears unusual. A newly incorporated farming LLP deposited ₹10 crore for the proposed purchase of land, but no land was ultimately acquired. The MoUs were cancelled, yet the LLP received compensation exceeding ₹52 crore, with payments routed through six DLF group entities and recorded as professional fees. Several of these entities were subsequently merged or restructured. The commercial rationale for this arrangement is not immediately evident from the public filings.
Where did the money go?
Among the LLP partners, filings suggest Ayushi Chaurasia received the largest share of the compensation. Subsequent financial disclosures indicate:
- foreign currency purchases and overseas remittances amounting to approximately ₹30.47 crore between FY2020 and FY2025;
- declaration of a United Arab Emirates Tax Residency Certificate and a Dubai address in later tax filings;
- a securities portfolio worth approximately ₹58.8 crore by FY2020-21, later rising to around ₹78 crore.
Filings also show that Ayushi had earlier reported short-term capital gains exceeding ₹12 crore in Assessment Year 2016-17. These disclosures may attract regulatory attention regarding the movement of funds and compliance with applicable foreign exchange regulations.
Possible regulatory issues
According to corporate records, legal experts may examine whether the transactions warrant scrutiny under multiple laws, including the Companies Act, 2013, the SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, Indian Accounting Standard (Ind AS) 24 on related-party disclosures, the General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) under the Income-tax Act, and the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) along with the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019. Whether any violation has occurred, however, would ultimately depend on the findings of the relevant regulatory authorities.
Timeline
| Year | Event |
| February 2016 | Blossom Farming Estates LLP incorporated |
| 2016 | ₹15.11 crore infused into LLP |
| 2016 | ₹10 crore deposited with six DLF entities |
| 2016 | MoUs executed for proposed purchase of plots |
| FY2019-20 | MoUs cancelled |
| FY2019-20 | LLP receives ₹62.45 crore, including ₹52.45 crore compensation |
| Subsequently | DLF restructures/merges several entities involved |
Key Questions That Remain
- Why was compensation of ₹52.45 crore paid when no property transaction was completed?
- How was the compensation amount determined?
- Why was the payment reportedly classified as professional fees in the books?
- Why were the payments split among six companies?
- Did the restructuring of the DLF entities affect transparency or audit trails?
- Do the transactions comply with disclosure, accounting and tax laws?
- Do the subsequent overseas fund movements warrant regulatory examination?
DLF’s Response
DLF’s response was not available at the time of publication. The company will be allowed to present its version, and any response received will be published in full.
