Business News

The fourth quarter results season is coming to a fag-end, and analysts said despite earnings largely meeting expectations, there is a noticeable moderation in the overall earnings landscape.Some notable companies that will announce their earnings this week include Varun Beverages, Zomato, Airtel, Siemens, Power Finance Corp, Mahindra and Mahindra, HAL, and JSW Steel, among others. Overall, around 501 companies are set to release their quarterly numbers this week.Here's what's on the Q4 earnings table next weekMay 13Varun Beverages, Zomato, Jindal Steel, Tube Investments, Aditya Birla Cipla, UPL, Sanofi India, Chalet Hotels, Karur Vysya, Inox India, KPI Green, Electrosteel Castings, Bombay Bumrah, CE Info Systems, Cera Sanitaryware, Ethos, Aarti Pharmalabs, Alembic, Yasho Industries, Nelcast among others will announce their earnings on tomorrow.May 14Bharti Airtel, Siemens, Shree Cements, Colgate-Palmolive, Oberoi Realty, Patanjali Foods, Bharti Hexacom, AIA Engineering, Apar Industries, Apollo Tyres, Radico Khaitan, Devyani International, BASF India, Shyam Metalics, PVR Inox, Zydus Wellness, Bajaj Electrical, and others will release their fourth-quarter results on Tuesday, May 14.May 15Power Finance Corp, Canara Bank, Mankind Pharma, Jindal Stainless, Rail Vikas Nigam, Dixon Technologies, Honeywell Automation, LIC Housing Finance, NLC India, Hatsun Agro Products, Tirdent, Jyothy Labs, NCC, Titagarh Rail Systems, Asahi India Glass, Clean Science and Tech, among others, will announce earnings for the quarter ended March 2024.May 16Mahindra and Mahindra, HAL, GAIL, Solar Industries, Info Edge, Container Corp, Biocon, Data Infrastructure Trust, Motherson Sumi Wiring, Endurance Technologies, Ratnamani Metals, Crompton Greaves, Triveni Turbine, among others, will declare quarterly results on Thursday.May 17JSW Steel, Zydus Lifesciences, NHPC, Astral, Global Health, GlaxoSmithKline Pharma, Godrej Health, Pfizer, Sobha, Poly Medicure, Amber Enterprises, Zee Enterprises, Shipping Corp, Kirloskar Ferrous Industries, Rashtriya Chemicals, Varroc Engineering, Nava, among others, will announce results for March quarter.May 18Ujjivan SFB, Dodla Dairy, Tide Water, IFGL Water, Vimta Labs, IRISI Business Services, Vikrant Global Capital Prithvi Exchange, and BDH Industries will declare Q4 results on Saturday.

Former President Donald Trump used a dubious accounting maneuver to claim improper tax breaks from his troubled Chicago tower, according to an IRS inquiry uncovered by The New York Times and ProPublica. Losing a yearslong audit battle over the claim could mean a tax bill of more than $100 million. The 92-story, glass-sheathed skyscraper along the Chicago River is the tallest and, at least for now, the last major construction project by Trump. Through a combination of cost overruns and the bad luck of opening in the teeth of the Great Recession, it was also a vast money loser. But when Trump sought to reap tax benefits from his losses, the IRS has argued, he went too far and, in effect, wrote off the same losses twice. The first write-off came on Trump's tax return for 2008. With sales lagging far behind projections, he claimed that his investment in the condo-hotel tower met the tax code definition of "worthless," because his debt on the project meant he would never see a profit. That move resulted in Trump's reporting losses as high as $651 million for the year, the Times and ProPublica found. There is no indication that the IRS challenged that initial claim, although that lack of scrutiny surprised tax experts consulted for this article. But in 2010, Trump and his tax advisers sought to extract further benefits from the Chicago project, executing a maneuver that would draw years of inquiry from the IRS. First, he shifted the company that owned the tower into a new partnership. Because he controlled both companies, it was like moving coins from one pocket to another. Then he used the shift as justification to declare $168 million in additional losses over the next decade. The issues around Trump's case were novel enough that, during his presidency, the IRS undertook a high-level legal review before pursuing it. The Times and ProPublica, in consultation with tax experts, calculated that the revision sought by the IRS would create a new tax bill of more than $100 million, plus interest and potential penalties. Trump's tax records have been a matter of intense speculation since the 2016 presidential campaign, when he defied decades of precedent and refused to release his returns, citing a long-running audit. A first, partial revelation of the substance of the audit came in 2020, when the Times reported that the IRS was disputing a $72.9 million tax refund that Trump had claimed starting in 2010. That refund, which appeared to be based on Trump's reporting of vast losses from his long-failing casinos, equaled every dollar of federal income tax he had paid during his first flush of television riches, from 2005 through 2008, plus interest. The reporting by the Times and ProPublica about the Chicago tower reveals a second component of Trump's quarrel with the IRS. This account was pieced together from a collection of public documents, including filings from the New York attorney general's suit against Trump in 2022, a passing reference to the audit in a congressional report that same year and an obscure 2019 IRS memorandum that explored the legitimacy of the accounting maneuver. The memorandum did not identify Trump, but the documents, along with tax records previously obtained by the Times and additional reporting, indicated that the former president was the focus of the inquiry.It is unclear how the audit battle has progressed since December 2022, when it was mentioned in the congressional report. Audits often drag on for years, and taxpayers have a right to appeal the IRS' conclusions. The case would typically become public only if Trump chose to challenge a ruling in court.In response to questions for this article, Trump's son Eric, executive vice president of the Trump Organization, said: "This matter was settled years ago, only to be brought back to life once my father ran for office. We are confident in our position, which is supported by opinion letters from various tax experts, including the former general counsel of the IRS." An IRS spokesperson said federal law prohibited the agency from discussing private taxpayer information.The outcome of Trump's dispute could set a precedent for wealthy people seeking tax benefits from the laws governing partnerships. Those laws are notoriously complex, riddled with uncertainty and under constant assault by lawyers pushing boundaries for their clients. The IRS has inadvertently further invited aggressive positions by rarely auditing partnership tax returns. The audit represents yet another potential financial threat -- albeit a more distant one -- for Trump. In recent months, he has been ordered to pay $83.3 million in a defamation case and an additional $454 million in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. Trump has appealed both judgments. (He is also in the midst of a criminal trial in Manhattan, where he is accused of covering up a hush-money payment to a porn actor in the weeks before the 2016 election.)Beyond the two episodes under audit, reporting by the Times in recent years has found that, across his business career, Trump, the Republicans' presumptive 2024 presidential nominee, has often used what experts described as highly aggressive -- and at times, legally suspect -- accounting maneuvers to avoid paying taxes. To the six tax experts consulted for this article, Trump's Chicago accounting maneuvers appeared to be questionable and unlikely to withstand scrutiny. "I think he ripped off the tax system," said Walter Schwidetzky, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and an expert on partnership taxation.From '$1.2 Billion' to 'Worthless' Trump struck a deal in 2001 to acquire land and a building that was then home to the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper. Two years later, after publicly toying with the idea of constructing the world's tallest building there, he unveiled plans for a more modest tower, with 486 residences and 339 "hotel condominiums" that buyers could use for short stays and allow Trump's company to rent out. He initially estimated that construction would last until 2007 and cost $650 million. Trump placed the project at the center of the first season of "The Apprentice" in 2004, offering the winner a top job there under his tutelage. "It'll be a mind-boggling job to manage," Trump said during the season finale. "When it's finished in 2007, the Trump International Hotel and Tower, Chicago, could have a value of $1.2 billion and will raise the standards of architectural excellence throughout the world." As his cost estimates increased, Trump arranged to borrow as much as $770 million for the project -- $640 million from Deutsche Bank and $130 million from Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund and private equity company. He personally guaranteed $40 million of the Deutsche loan. Both Deutsche and Fortress then sold off pieces of the loans to other institutions, spreading the risk and potential gain. Trump planned to sell enough of the 825 units to pay off his loans when they came due in May 2008. But when that date came, he had sold only 133. At that point, he projected that construction would not be completed until mid-2009, at a revised cost of $859 million. He asked his lenders for a six-month extension. A briefing document prepared for the lenders, obtained by the Times and ProPublica, said Trump would contribute $89 million of his own money, $25 million more than his initial plan. The lenders agreed. But sales did not pick up that summer, with the nation plunged into the financial crisis that would become the Great Recession. When Trump asked for another extension in September, his lenders refused. Two months later, Trump defaulted on his loans and sued his lenders, characterizing the financial crisis as the kind of catastrophe, like a flood or hurricane, covered by the "force majeure" clause of his loan agreement with Deutsche Bank. That, he said, entitled him to an indefinite delay in repaying his loans. Trump went so far as to blame the bank and its peers for "creating the current financial crisis." He demanded $3 billion in damages. At the time, Trump had paid down his loans with $99 million in sales but still needed more money to complete construction. At some point that year, he concluded that his investment in the tower was worthless, at least as the term is defined in partnership tax law. Trump's worthlessness claim meant only that his stake in 401 Mezz Venture, the limited liability company that held the tower, was without value because he expected that sales would never produce enough cash to pay off the mortgages, let alone turn a profit. When he filed his 2008 tax return, he declared business losses of $697 million. Tax records do not fully show which businesses generated that figure. But working with tax experts, the Times and ProPublica calculated that the Chicago worthlessness deduction could have been as high as $651 million, the value of Trump's stake in the partnership -- about $94 million he had invested and the $557 million loan balance reported on his tax returns that year. When business owners report losses greater than their income in any given year, they can retain the leftover negative amount as a credit to reduce their taxable income in future years. As it turned out, that tax-reducing power would be of increasing value to Trump. While many of his businesses continued to lose money, income from "The Apprentice" and licensing and endorsement agreements poured in: $33.3 million in 2009, $44.6 million in 2010 and $51.3 million in 2011. Trump's advisers girded for a potential audit of the worthlessness deduction from the moment they claimed it, according to the filings from the New York attorney general's lawsuit. Starting in 2009, Trump's team excluded the Chicago tower from the frothy annual "statements of financial condition" that Trump used to boast of his wealth, out of concern that assigning value to the building would conflict with its declared worthlessness, according to the attorney general's filing. (Those omissions came even as Trump fraudulently inflated his net worth to qualify for low-interest loans, according to the ruling in the attorney general's lawsuit.) Trump had good reason to fear an audit of the deduction, according to the tax experts consulted for this article. They believe that Trump's tax advisers pushed beyond what was defensible.The worthlessness deduction serves as a way for a taxpayer to benefit from an expected total loss on an investment long before the final results are known. It occupies a fuzzy and counterintuitive slice of tax law. Three decades ago, a federal appeals court ruled that the judgment of a company's worthlessness could be based in part on the opinion of its owner. After taking the deduction, the owner can keep the "worthless" company and its assets. Subsequent court decisions have only partly clarified the rules. Absent prescribed parameters, tax lawyers have been left to handicap the chances that a worthlessness deduction will withstand an IRS challenge.There are several categories, with a declining likelihood of success, of money that taxpayers can claim to have lost. The tax experts consulted for this article universally assigned the highest level of certainty to cash spent to acquire an asset. The roughly $94 million that Trump's tax returns show he invested in Chicago fell into this category. Some gave a lower, although still probable, chance of a taxpayer prevailing in declaring a loss based on loans that a lender agreed to forgive. That's because forgiven debt generally must be declared as income, which can offset that portion of the worthlessness deduction in the same year. A large portion of Trump's worthlessness deduction fell in this category, although he did not begin reporting forgiven debt income until two years later, a delay that would have further reduced his chances of prevailing in an audit.The tax experts gave the weakest chance of surviving a challenge for a worthlessness deduction based on borrowed money for which the outcome was not clear. It reflects a doubly irrational claim -- that the taxpayer deserves a tax benefit for losing someone else's money even before the money has been lost, and that those anticipated future losses can be used to offset real income from other sources. Most of the debt included in Trump's worthlessness deduction was based on that risky position. Including that debt in the deduction was "just not right," said Monte Jackel, a veteran of the IRS and major accounting firms who often publishes analyses of partnership tax issues. A Second Bite at the Apple Trump continued to sell units at the Chicago tower, but still below his costs. Had he done nothing, his 2008 worthlessness deduction would have prevented him from claiming that shortfall as losses again. But in 2010, his lawyers attempted an end-run by merging the entity through which he owned the Chicago tower into another partnership, DJT Holdings LLC. In the following years, they piled other businesses, including several of his golf courses, into DJT Holdings. Those changes had no apparent business purpose. But Trump's tax advisers took the position that pooling the Chicago tower's finances with other businesses entitled him to declare even more tax-reducing losses from his Chicago investment. His financial problems there continued. More than 100 of the hotel condominiums never sold. Sales of all units totaled only $727 million, far below Trump's budgeted costs of $859 million. And about 70,000 square feet of retail space remained vacant because it had been designed without access to foot or vehicle traffic. From 2011 through 2020, Trump reported $168 million in additional losses from the project.Those additional write-offs helped Trump avoid tax liability for his continuing entertainment riches, as well as his unpaid debt from the tower. Starting in 2010, his lenders agreed to forgive about $270 million of those debts. But he was able to delay declaring most of that income until 2014 and spread it out over five years of tax returns, thanks to a provision in the Obama administration's stimulus bill responding to the Great Recession. In 2018, Trump reported positive income for the first time in 11 years. But his income tax bill still amounted to only $1.9 million, even as he reported a $25 million gain from the sale of his late father's assets.It's unclear when the IRS began to question the 2010 merger transaction, but the conflict escalated during Trump's presidency. The IRS explained its position in a technical advice memorandum, released in 2019, that identified Trump only as "A." Such memos, reserved for cases where the law is unclear, are rare and involve extensive review by senior IRS lawyers. The agency produced only two other such memos that year. The memos are required to be publicly released with the taxpayer's information removed, and this one was more heavily redacted than usual. Some partnership specialists wrote papers exploring its meaning and importance to other taxpayers, but none identified taxpayer "A" as the then-sitting president of the United States. The Times and ProPublica matched the facts of the memo to information from Trump's tax returns and elsewhere. The 20-page document is dense with footnotes, calculations and references to various statutes, but the core of the IRS' position is that Trump's 2010 merger violated a law meant to prevent double dipping on tax-reducing losses. If done properly, the merger would have accounted for the fact that Trump had already written off the full cost of the tower's construction with his worthlessness deduction. In the IRS memo, Trump's lawyers vigorously disagreed with the agency's conclusions, saying he had followed the law.If the IRS prevails, Trump's tax returns would look very different, especially those from 2011 to 2017. During those years, he reported $184 million in income from "The Apprentice" and agreements to license his name, along with $219 million from canceled debts. But he paid only $643,431 in income taxes thanks to huge losses on his businesses, including the Chicago tower. The revisions sought by the IRS would require amending his tax returns to remove $146 million in losses and add as much as $218 million in income from condominium sales. That shift of up to $364 million could swing those years out of the red and well into positive territory, creating a tax bill that could easily exceed $100 million.The only public sign of the Chicago audit came in December 2022, when a congressional Joint Committee on Taxation report on IRS efforts to audit Trump made an unexplained reference to the section of tax law at issue in the Chicago case. It confirmed that the audit was still underway and could affect Trump's tax returns from several years. That the IRS did not initiate an audit of the 2008 worthlessness deduction puzzled the experts in partnership taxation. Many assumed the understaffed IRS simply had not realized what Trump had done until the deadline to investigate it had passed. "I think the government recognized that they screwed up," and then audited the merger transaction to make up for it, Jackel said. The agency's difficulty in keeping up with Trump's maneuvers, experts said, showed that this gray area of tax law was too easy to exploit. "Congress needs to radically change the rules for the worthlessness deduction," Schwidetzky said.

It was just a routine food surveillance exercise in Tsim Sha Tsui, a shopping hub known for its hotels and restaurants overlooking the Victoria Harbour in Hong Kong. The Centre for Food Safety, a government entity, collected samples of spices from some retail outlets.Unexpectedly, the test revealed the presence of a pesticide, ethylene oxide, in four products of two popular Indian spice brands— MDH’s Madras Curry Powder, Sambhar Masala and Curry Powder, and Everest’s Fish Curry Masala. It had a domino effect across the region even as countries across the globe sat up and wondered if there was a pesticide in their curry. The authorities in Hong Kong swiftly directed vendors to remove the items from shelves and stop their sale. Within a fortnight, the Singapore Food Agency ordered a local importer, SP Muthiah & Sons Pte Ltd, to recall Everest’s Fish Curry Masala from the city state and went as far as advising people who had consumed it and had health concerns to “seek medical advice”.Indian spice companies are feeling the heat in the global market. Australia is contemplating a course of action and has not ruled out a recall. The Maldives, amid diplomatic tensions with India, has gone a step further and banned the sale of Everest and MDH products. The US, a key importer, has ramped up inspection and rejected a number of Indian spice shipments due to salmonella contamination. 110041037Experts believe that timely action by Indian regulators and the cleaning up of t h e domestic spice market are essential to regain trust across the border, a prerequisite for the country’s spice industry to achieve the goal of $10 billion export by 2030.India is both the biggest consumer and exporter of spices. Called the spice bowl of the world, it cultivates more than 75 spices. The country’s spice exports in FY23-24 were valued at $4.25 billion. The major spices exported from India include chilli powder, cumin, turmeric, “curry powder and paste”, cardamom, pepper, coriander and nutmeg.“In order to reestablish credibility in the global market, India needs to clean up its domestic production system through regular inspection, tests, etc,” says Jayant Dasgupta, former Indian ambassador to the World Trade Organization (WTO). “If we improve the quality of our domestic spice market, our export quality will also see an improvement,” he says, adding that major spice exporters probably source ingredients from smaller producers that cater to domestic markets.Estimating that the recent dispute could affect spice exports worth $700 million, a report published by Delhi-based think tank, Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), said last week that the overall situation called for “a fundamental shift in how India handles food safety”, adding that transparency, stringent enforcement and clear communication are critical “to maintain the integrity of its exports and domestic products alike”.According to Dasgupta, the European Union, known for its strict standards, must have taken note of the dispute by now. “We may hear from the bloc soon,” he says, adding that if the EU detects an anomaly in an agricultural product, it will immediately destroy the affected consignment rather than return it, a measure for which it invokes select WTO provisions.WHAT NEXT?The trajectory of the present controversy may largely depend on the response of other prominent importers. China, India’s primary spice destination, with imports totalling $928 million in FY24, has so far remained silent.Australia has not dismissed the possibility of recalling certain spice products from India. In an email response to ET’s query, a spokeswoman of Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) says they are aware of “the potential contamination of spice products from India” as well as the action taken in Hong Kong and Singapore. “We are working with federal, state and territory food enforcement agencies to determine if further action is required in Australia (e.g. a food recall),” she adds, adding that “ethylene oxide is not permitted to be used as a treatment for foods sold in Australia”. 110041042Everest, which produces more than 10 million spice packets a day and exports to over 60 countries, says that some nations do demand a treatment by ethylene oxide, which is basically “a gas and not an ingredient that can be added to any product”, adding that the pesticide is primarily used to control microorganism and pathogens in food products to achieve a longer shelf life.In a written reply to ET’s queries, a company spokesperson says, “Everest Fish Curry Masala, which became a matter of controversy, was one of 33 products that were sent for trial and testing in the Hong Kong market. The food safety authorities asked to recall only one product.” The spokesperson says the company had to accept the recall as their local importer “did not wish to confront the authorities”.Reiterating that the spices which the company sells in India and abroad are safe, the spokesperson says the ethylene oxide treatment is not used for domestic items. “In an international market, the products go through ships, ports and long travel days in the sea, and our consignment has to go through adverse weather conditions.Accordingly, to avoid any adverse effects on the products, a few countries like the US and Canada prefer ethylene oxide sterilisation over other methods for food safety.”The acceptance of ethylene oxide differs in different geographies. In the US, it is allowed to a level whereas it is banned in spices for domestic consumption in India. In Singapore, as stated in a Singapore Food Agency statement issued on April 18, “it is not authorised for use in food” but “can be used to fumigate agricultural products to prevent microbial contamination”.ET did not get any response from MDH, the other exporter at the centre of the controversy. Earlier, the company’s statement, as reported by news agency PTI, said the allegations were “baseless, untrue” and “lack any substantiating evidence”.“The Spices Board is trying to address these problems in a transparent manner,” says board member S Thirumurugan, who is also a cardamom grower in Theni, Tamil Nadu.Finally it did. In a nine-page circular dated May 7, the Spices Board, a regulatory authority promoting the export of Indian spices, advised exporters to “identify EtO as a hazard” and take measures “to ensure the absence of EtO and its metabolites in spices and spice products throughout the supply chain”. The agency under the Union ministry of commerce and industry further said, “Exporters shall test raw materials, processing aids, packaging materials and finished goods for EtO contamination.”It advised the firms to “perform a root cause analysis” if they detected it, to avoid future recurrence.Another member of the Spices Board and director of Assam-based spice company Sigma Spice Industries, Gautam Ghosh, says there are meticulously crafted protocols both for exports and domestic markets. “At Sigma, we sign an agreement with a supplier only after it agrees to meet our parameters. Once a consignment arrives, we do some basic tests in our own labs,” says Ghosh, whose company, which caters only to the domestic market, has set up laboratories in Guwahati and Jorhat in Assam and Varanasi in UP.The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), a regulator mandated to check the standards of food articles consumed in the country, has recently said that it has been collecting samples of branded spices and dismissed reports that it allowed high levels of pesticide residues in spices and herbs.However, widespread production of illicit and inferior spices is a concern in India. Last week, the Delhi Police seized 15 tonnes of spurious spice powder from factories in Karawal Nagar. While busting the masala racket, the police also recovered rotten rice, spoiled pearl millets and wood dust that were used to make adulterated spice powder.These have been disastrous signs for India’s spice trade whose exports have climbed steadily from $408 million in FY2002 to $4.2 billion now. During the 14th World Spice Congress held in Navi Mumbai last September, officials said India’s spice export is expected to reach $10 billion by 2030.The spice route to India is a couple of millennia old. Romans undertook voyages to India mainly for spices. Under the Romans, Alexandria became the greatest commercial centre of the world and “was also the leading emporium for the aromatic and pungent spices of India,” according to Britannica. If that legacy has to endure, regulators have to put their foot down and spice companies have to clean up their act.Everest responds‘Ethylene Oxide is used for sterilisation. Many countries demand it’A spokesperson of India’s leading spice exporter Everest responds to ET’s queries on the recall of its Fish Curry Masala by Hong Kong and Singapore. Edited excerptsOn the recall of its product by Hong Kong and Singapore:A recall is a very standard process followed in the food industry by all countries, and it does not mean the brand has been banned. Everest is not banned in Hong Kong, Singapore or any other country.On the presence of high levels of ethylene oxide in its products:Many major countries demand ethylene oxide (EtO) treatment. It is basically a gas and not an ingredient. EtO is largely used by food companies and pharma companies for sterilisation purposes. It is primarily used to control microorganisms and pathogens in food products, for a longer shelf life.On the details of the recall:Everest Fish Curry Masala, which became a matter of controversy, was one of 33 products that were sent for trial and testing in the Hong Kong market. In Hong Kong, the food safety authorities ordered the recall of only one product and passed the remaining 32 products. Our local importer did not wish to confront the authorities. Hence they accepted the recall process in Hong Kong. Singapore never tested the Fish Curry Masala. They only followed the Hong Kong recall order.On whether ethylene oxide in present in its domestic products:The spices we sell in India do not require or undergo EtO treatment. In an international market, the products go through ships, ports and long travel days in the sea, and our consignment has to go through adverse weather conditions. Accordingly, to avoid any adverse effects on the products, a few countries like the US and Canada prefer EtO sterilisation over other sterilisation methods for food safety, which is a common norm globally. Every country has its own parameters and we treat products based on the importer’s request to meet the norms of the respective importing country.

Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh on Saturday said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi should come forward to clarify the BJP's '75 years retirement formula' which they have imposed on their senior party leaders. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader was responding to Union Home Minister Amit Shah's statement that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will continue to lead the nation post the Lok Sabha elections. Singh said that Kejriwal raised the "genuine" issue of '75 years age rule', which was made by Prime Minister Modi. "They (BJP leaders, including Shah) said whatever rule PM Modi has made, it will be implemented on other leaders but not on Modi," Singh said at the AAP office here. Reiterating Kejriwal's earlier statement, Singh said the '75 years age rule' was implemented on the BJP leaders like LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Yashwant Sinha, Sumitra Mahajan and several MPs, and they were asked to not to contest the elections. "PM Modi should himself give the clarification on the age rule made by him. He should also clarify that whether he is greedy for the post of PM," Singh said. Shah earlier asserted that Prime Minister Modi will continue to lead the country post 2024 Lok Sabha polls and hit out at Kejriwal for claiming the PM was seeking votes for making him his successor.