Quick Summary
Arthya Wealth and Investments Private Limited holds SEBI Investment Adviser registration INA000015279 and a separate Portfolio Manager registration, INP000007225, both perpetual. Its own PMS complaints page lists that second licence under a different number entirely, INA000007225, an IA-style prefix on what should be a PMS registration. No fee is published for either service, the complaint table’s own Total row does not read the way a Total row should, and the Terms, Privacy Policy and MITC are all missing from the site.
Arthya Wealth and Investments Private Limited runs two SEBI-regulated businesses from one Bandra address: an Investment Adviser practice under INA000015279 and a Portfolio Manager business under INP000007225.
Both licences check out against SEBI’s own register.
What does not check out is a number on the firm’s own website, on the very page meant to disclose that second licence’s complaint record.
This page works through the registration, that numbering discrepancy, the missing pricing on both sides of the business, the complaint disclosure, and the promotional language worth a second look.
Arthya Wealth and Investments
Arthya Wealth and Investments Private Limited describes itself as a Mumbai wealth management firm built around simplifying the investment experience and identifying strategies suited to a client’s individual profile and risk appetite.
The firm says it takes an unbiased, client-centric approach, working across the investment industry rather than pushing its own products, and that it focuses on monitoring portfolios and maintaining process controls rather than over-diversifying.
Gaurav Arora, Founder and Managing Director, carries more than 15 years in private wealth management, with a career spanning ASK Wealth Advisors as Chief Investment Officer from 2016 to 2020, Religare Private Wealth as CIO from 2014 to 2016, and earlier stints at IIFL Private Wealth Management and Standard Chartered Private Bank. He holds a PGDBM from IIM Bangalore.
On the Ministry of Corporate Affairs register, the company carries CIN U67100MH2020PTC340648, incorporated on 15 June 2020, with Smitha Jain Arora listed as co-director alongside Arora himself.
Beyond the two SEBI licences, the firm also holds an AMFI Mutual Fund Distributor registration, ARN 171272, and separate NSE and BSE Authorised Person registrations for cash and derivatives trading, none of which appear in the firm’s own regulatory disclosures and all of which were confirmed independently here.
None of this establishes wrongdoing on its own, and nothing further on this page does either.
Where a registered adviser’s conduct does cross a line, the formal escalation route is set out toward the end of this page.
Is Arthya Wealth and Investments SEBI Registered?
Yes, under two separate registrations, and both appear on SEBI’s own intermediary lists.
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Name | Arthya Wealth and Investments Private Limited |
| IA Registration No. | INA000015279 |
| PMS Registration No. | INP000007225 |
| Email Name | gaurav@arthyawealth |
| Registered Address | Flat No. 12, Jumbo Co-operative Housing Society, TPS IV, Road No. 1, Bandra West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400050 |
| Contact Person | Gaurav Arora |
| IA Validity | Oct 07, 2020, Perpetual |
What Each Prefix Actually Permits
The INA prefix marks an Investment Adviser, a licence that allows personalised advice built around a client’s goals, income and risk profile, but not discretionary management of a client’s money.
The INP prefix marks a Portfolio Manager, which does allow the firm to take discretionary or non-discretionary control of a client’s portfolio directly.
These are two distinct activities with two distinct fee regimes, and a firm holding both, as Arthya does, needs to keep the disclosure for each one separate and correctly labelled.
The Firm’s Own PMS Complaints Page Uses The Wrong Number
Arthya’s live PMS complaints page states the Portfolio Manager registration number as INA000007225, an IA-prefixed number, not the INP000007225 that appears on the firm’s own founder profile and in its PMS registration disclosure elsewhere on the same site.
This is not a typo in a third-party directory.
It is the firm’s own PMS disclosure page misstating the registration number for the exact licence that page exists to disclose, and the discrepancy sits between two pages of the same website rather than between the website and an outside source.
Investors relying on that complaints page to verify the PMS licence should check the registration number directly against SEBI’s own register first, since the number as published there does not match the format a Portfolio Manager registration actually takes.
What Does Arthya Wealth Charge for Advisory or Portfolio Management?
Neither side of this business publishes a fee anywhere on the website, and that gap applies equally to the Investment Adviser service and the PMS business.
The ₹1,51,000 per client family per year ceiling applies only to the Investment Adviser side of fee-based advice for individual and HUF clients who are not accredited investors.
Portfolio Management Services carry no such cap, running instead on a separately negotiated fee structure, typically against a minimum investment well into seven figures.
Without a published fee for either licence, there is no way for a prospective client to check the IA side against that ceiling before engaging the firm, and no way to compare the PMS fee against market norms either.
The website directs visitors toward its Solutions and PMS pages without stating applicable charges, payment terms, or other costs on either one.
Ask for the complete fee schedule in writing, specifying which of the two licences it applies to, before signing anything.
Also Read: Centrum Investment Advisors leaves its AuA-based and fixed fee rates unpublished.
What Does Arthya Wealth’s Complaint Data Reveal?
| Financial Year | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-24 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 2024-25 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 2025-26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
The underlying story here is simple: two complaints arrived in FY2023-24, sat unresolved through the end of that year, and were closed out the following year.
By FY2025-26, the firm’s own table shows nothing outstanding.
The Total Row Reads Worse Than The Actual Position
That Total row is the part worth a second look.
Summed column by column, it reads 2, 2, 2, 2, and a reader skimming only that bottom line could reasonably conclude two complaints remain pending today.
They do not. The 2 complaints carried forward into FY2024-25 are the same 2 that arrived in FY2023-24, not a separate set, and both were resolved within that year.
The current actual position, per the firm’s own FY2025-26 row, is zero received, zero pending.
Read the current year’s row, not the Total row, to know where things actually stand.
Summing a “pending” column across years double counts the same unresolved complaint for every year it stayed open, which is exactly what happened here.
The Disclosure Also Starts Three Years Into The Registration
Arthya has held its Investment Adviser licence since October 2020, yet the earliest complaint data on the site begins with FY2023-24.
There is a three-year gap with no disclosed complaint history at all, and the monthly trend table published alongside it only goes back as far as September 2025, narrower still than the annual table.
The disclosure also gives no indication of what the two complaints actually concerned, so investors cannot tell whether they related to advisory fees, portfolio performance, service quality or something else entirely.
What Promotional Claims on Arthya Wealth’s Website Need a Closer Look?
A handful of phrases across the site lean toward outcome language rather than the more measured disclosure SEBI expects from a regulated adviser.
1. Wealth Compounding For Clients
The About page credits the firm’s work with producing “great investment ideas and wealth compounding for our clients,” phrasing that reads as a result already delivered rather than a service offered.
2. Quartile 1 to Quartile 2 Performance
A claim of “consistent all-round Quartile 1 – Quartile 2 performance for best long-term results” is a specific performance assertion. No supporting data, benchmark, or methodology accompanies it anywhere on the site.
3. Among The Country’s Top Wealth Management Professionals
Gaurav Arora’s profile describes him as “among the country’s top Wealth Management professionals,” a superiority claim made without any ranking, award, or third-party source behind it.
4. Broken App Store and Google Play Links
The footer displays both an App Store badge and a Google Play badge, but neither link actually opens an app listing.
A visitor clicking through would reasonably assume Arthya runs a live mobile app, when the links simply do not work.
None of these rises to an explicit guaranteed-returns claim of the kind SEBI orders have treated as a serious violation.
They sit closer to the softer end, the kind of language a compliance pass would ordinarily flag before anything goes live on a client-facing page.
Other Compliance Gaps About Arthya Wealth Worth Knowing
Three standard investor-facing documents are simply not available anywhere on the site.
Terms & Conditions are not published, leaving investors without the governing terms for either the advisory or the portfolio management service.
A Privacy Policy is not published either, so there is no stated basis for how personal and financial data gets collected, used or protected.
No Most Important Terms and Conditions document is available, the standard summary SEBI expects advisers to provide before a client commits.
Taken together with the missing pricing, this leaves a prospective client with very little in writing to review before deciding whether to proceed.
Also Read: Blue Ocean Financial Services talks transparency, but keeps its fee behind onboarding.
How to File a Complaint Against Arthya Wealth and Investments?
Given that both licences here carry genuinely different fee rules and different rights, the first step with any grievance is establishing which one you actually dealt with.
Get the registration number, in writing, specifying whether your relationship was under the IA licence or the PMS licence, before raising anything further.
If you were sold on PMS, do not accept a complaints page citing the wrong registration format as adequate disclosure.
If a direct complaint to the firm does not resolve things, escalation runs through the regulator next, and the channel differs slightly depending on which licence is involved.
For the Investment Adviser side, a direct grievance that goes nowhere moves onto file complaint against RIA, which covers what SEBI expects an adviser to have resolved before a client needs to escalate further.
For the Portfolio Manager side specifically, the dedicated route is covered on our complaint against portfolio managers page, since PMS grievances are handled under a separate set of SEBI norms from advisory complaints.
Either route ultimately funnels into the regulator’s own platform if the firm’s response is not satisfactory.
The SEBI SCORES portal is where that formal filing happens, and naming the specific registration number in your complaint helps it get routed correctly.
Where SCORES does not produce a resolution, structured conciliation is the next stage rather than a repeat filing.
The SMART ODR login page explains how a conciliator gets assigned and what to bring into that session.
Not sure which of Arthya’s two SEBI licences actually applies to your account?
We check the registration, the fee structure and the paperwork against what SEBI actually requires before you commit anything further. Register with us for a clear read on where you stand.
Disclaimer
This page is based on Arthya Wealth and Investments’ own published material, the SEBI intermediary register and public third party listings, current as of October 2026, and alleges no wrongdoing since no SEBI order stands against the firm. Registration details, pricing and website content can change, so verify everything at source before acting. Treat this page as research, not legal or investment advice.
Conclusion
Arthya Wealth and Investments Private Limited holds two genuine SEBI licences, an Investment Adviser registration and a Portfolio Manager registration, both of which check out against the regulator’s own list.
What does not check out cleanly is the firm’s own PMS complaints page, which cites a different, wrongly formatted number for that same licence, alongside a Total row in the complaint table that overstates the current pending count if read on its own.
Neither service publishes a fee anywhere, and the Terms, Privacy Policy and MITC that would normally sit alongside that pricing are all absent too.
Before engaging either side of this business, get the registration number, the applicable fee and the governing terms in writing, and check the PMS number specifically against SEBI’s register rather than the firm’s own complaints page.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. INA000015279 is Arthya's Investment Adviser registration and INP000007225 is its separate Portfolio Manager registration, both held by Arthya Wealth and Investments Private Limited and both perpetual. Confirm both directly on SEBI's register rather than relying on the website alone.
The page lists the PMS licence as INA000007225, an IA-style prefix, rather than INP000007225, the number that appears elsewhere on the firm's own site. This is a discrepancy on the firm's own website and is worth raising directly with the firm before relying on that page.
No. The complaint table's Total row reads 2, 2, 2, 2 because it sums a pending column across years, which double counts the same complaints that were later resolved. The firm's own FY2025-26 row shows zero pending.
No. The ₹1,51,000 per family per year ceiling applies only to the Investment Adviser licence for non-accredited individual and HUF clients. Portfolio Management Services carry no such cap and run on separately negotiated terms.
Neither the IA nor the PMS fee is published on the website. Ask the firm directly for the complete fee schedule in writing, specifying which licence it applies to, before proceeding.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
