Combining schemes
What actually stacks, what does not, and the honest arithmetic behind a big-sounding number.
Two different things are true at once, and a vendor quoting a big number usually only tells you one of them. Combining is real and explicitly designed for. And the arithmetic behind a headline figure is usually smaller, and different in kind, than how it is presented.
What genuinely stacks
AIF’s interest subvention and its CGTMSE fee waiver are financing features of a loan, not a capital subsidy, so they sit alongside a MIDH or NHB capital subsidy by design rather than competing with it for the same slot.
Scheme Guidelines for CENTRAL SECTOR SCHEME of Financing facility under 'Agriculture Infrastructure Fund' (Agriculture Infrastructure Fund (AIF), Revised Scheme Guidelines)
Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India
Printed September 2024
“Section 13 "Convergence", verbatim: "Any grant or subsidy available under any present or future scheme of Central/State government can be availed for projects under this financing facility, e.g. MIDH, PMFME, SMAM, Gobar-Dhan, PMKSY, AMI, PACS as MSC, RKVY, PM-KUSUM (A, B and C),…”Read the full clause
“Section 13 "Convergence", verbatim: "Any grant or subsidy available under any present or future scheme of Central/State government can be availed for projects under this financing facility, e.g. MIDH, PMFME, SMAM, Gobar-Dhan, PMKSY, AMI, PACS as MSC, RKVY, PM-KUSUM (A, B and C), PMEGP etc. In cases of capital subsidy such amount shall be considered as promoter's contribution. However, a minimum of 10% of the project cost shall be mandatory as promoter's contribution."”
p.12, Section 13
Read on 11 September 2026 by chirag.
Read the second sentence as carefully as the first: a capital subsidy is counted as your promoter’s contribution, the equity you fund yourself, not credited on top of it. And a minimum of 10% of project cost is mandatory as promoter’s contribution regardless of any subsidy. Combining reduces what you must personally fund; it does not remove that floor.
MIDH and NHB are a choice, not a stack
This site recorded that question as unconfirmed until 14 September 2026, because the NHB guideline then in hand genuinely did not address it. The current one addresses it twice, in the same words both times, and the answer is no:
National Horticulture Board Operational Guidelines JANUARY 2025 (NHB Operational Guidelines, January 2025: the non-availment declaration)
National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India (Plot No. 85, Sector-18, Institutional Area, Gurugram 122015)
Printed January 2025
“Chapter 01, "Pattern of Assistance" (PDF p.15), verbatim: "The schemes of NHB and other schemes under the Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH), including the National Horticulture Mission (NHM), are mutually exclusive, and financial assistance can be claimed…”Read the full clause
“Chapter 01, "Pattern of Assistance" (PDF p.15), verbatim: "The schemes of NHB and other schemes under the Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH), including the National Horticulture Mission (NHM), are mutually exclusive, and financial assistance can be claimed under only one scheme for a single project. Components that are already covered under other sub-schemes of MIDH or central government schemes such as those implemented by APEDA, the Ministry of Food Processing Industries (MoFPI), or the National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB) shall not be eligible for assistance under NHB schemes." The same rule is printed a second time, in Chapter 04 under "Eligible Applicants" (PDF p.46), verbatim: "The Scheme of NHB and other schemes of MIDH including NHM will be mutually exclusive, and benefit can be claimed only from one scheme for one project." Annexure-II (PDF p.72), the declaration every applicant signs, names one more scheme outright, verbatim: "It is also certified that the said promoter has not applied for subsidy under the schemes of NHM (MIDH)/RKVY and any others centrally sponsored schemes either in his /her own name individually /partner/directors’ /CEO /MD or through legal entity or in any firm or Constitution, in the above category of project or its any components, or any similar project location or any other project location." The same sentence is issued separately as a form headed "Certificate about the Non-Availment of subsidy under NHM (MIDH) /RKVY and others centrally sponsored schemes", signed not by the applicant but by the District In-charge of the state horticulture or agriculture department, and listed among the papers a bank encloses with the subsidy claim.”
PDF p.15 (Chapter 01); PDF p.46 (Chapter 04); PDF p.72 (Annexure-II)
Read on 14 September 2026 by chirag.
Note that this is a project-level bar, not a component-level one. You cannot put the growing rooms under NHB and the compost yard under MIDH and call it two projects. NHB’s own declaration form goes further and requires you to certify that you have not applied for subsidy under NHM, MIDH or RKVY for this category of project or any of its components, anywhere, and a District In-charge counter-signs it.
Settled, and settled against combining them on one project. NHB's own guideline says so twice, in the same words both times: the schemes of NHB and the schemes under MIDH, including NHM, "are mutually exclusive, and financial assistance can be claimed under only one scheme for a single project". This is a project-level bar, not a component-level one, so it is not avoided by putting the growing rooms under one scheme and the compost yard under the other. This overturns the verdict this atlas published until 14 September 2026, which was "unconfirmed". That was an honest reading of the superseded guideline, which genuinely did not address the question; the reasoning at the time was that neither document said in so many words whether a single project may draw from both. The current guideline does say so. Choose on the arithmetic, not on the paperwork. For a mushroom project of any real size the two are not close: MIDH prices the growing rooms against a fixed cost norm, so its entitlement stops rising once the norm is reached, while NHB prices per tonne up to 300 MT. MIDH is the better route mainly for a small or self-funded grower, because it carries credit-linkage escapes that NHB does not, and because NHB does not fund a unit of 50 MT or less at all.
What NHB does still allow beside it
The same guideline permits dovetailing from other central and state schemes, provided no single component is funded twice. Both clauses have to be read together: the first closes the MIDH door, the second keeps others open.
National Horticulture Board Operational Guidelines JANUARY 2025 (NHB Operational Guidelines, January 2025: what may still be combined)
National Horticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India (Plot No. 85, Sector-18, Institutional Area, Gurugram 122015)
Printed January 2025
“Chapter 04, "Dovetailing of Assistance" (PDF p.53), verbatim: "Considering the complexities and challenges associated with the projects of this nature, the applicant may dovetail assistance available under various other schemes of Central and State Governments, which would…”Read the full clause
“Chapter 04, "Dovetailing of Assistance" (PDF p.53), verbatim: "Considering the complexities and challenges associated with the projects of this nature, the applicant may dovetail assistance available under various other schemes of Central and State Governments, which would improve the viability of the projects. While dovetailing such assistance, it will be ensured that there is no duplication of assistance for the same component of the project." Annexure-I, the promoter's undertaking, sets the disclosure this runs on, verbatim: "No subsidy/grant in aid other than shown in application form has been availed/ is to be availed by the promoters/Directors/Partners/proprietors for this new project and component thereof from Central Govt or any of its agencies except the NHB."”
PDF p.53 (Dovetailing of Assistance); PDF p.71 (Annexure-I, item 6)
Read on 14 September 2026 by chirag.
One scheme per component remains the working rule this atlas applies elsewhere, and PMKSY states the same underlying principle for its own family of guidelines: convergence is permitted, duplication of the same component is not.
Pradhan Mantri Kisan Sampada Yojana "Scheme for Integrated Cold Chain & Value Addition Infrastructure" (PMKSY Integrated Cold Chain & Value Addition Infrastructure (2025 revision))
Ministry of Food Processing Industries, Government of India
Printed 22 May 2025
“Section 2 "Objective" (page 2 of 43), verbatim: "The objective of the Scheme is to provide integrated cold chain, preservation and value addition infrastructure facilities without any break, from the farm gate to the consumer in order to reduce post-harvest losses of…”Read the full clause
“Section 2 "Objective" (page 2 of 43), verbatim: "The objective of the Scheme is to provide integrated cold chain, preservation and value addition infrastructure facilities without any break, from the farm gate to the consumer in order to reduce post-harvest losses of non-horticulture produce, dairy, meat, poultry, and marine/ fish (except shrimp)." Mushroom is a horticulture crop (see MIDH 2025, Section 1.1 and Annexure V, Item III "Mushroom cultivation"), this scheme's own objective clause excludes horticulture produce by name, which excludes mushroom by scope. Confirmed case-insensitive full-text search of the whole 43-page OCR transcript for "mushroom": zero matches, consistent with the scope exclusion rather than an oversight.”
p. 2 of 43
Read on 11 September 2026 by chirag.
One reading behind the AIF answer, stated as a reading
Both documents permit this pair and this site records it as stacking. There is still a clause worth knowing about: alongside its dovetailing permission, NHB bars components “already covered under other sub-schemes of MIDH or central government schemes”, and AIF is a central scheme. On the better reading that clause is about a component being paid for twice, which is not what an interest subvention does, and this site follows that reading. It is a reading, not a sentence either document states.
The practical step does not wait on it. Ask NHB and your lending bank together, before the loan is sanctioned rather than after, since NHB requires the term loan in any case and an AIF-financed one is a natural way to meet that requirement.
Where a ₹1 crore figure can legitimately come from
A vendor quoting “₹1 crore subsidy from NHB” is usually wrong in scheme, in mechanism and in geography, per “Myths and facts”. But a genuine ₹1 crore-plus figure does exist, built honestly, in an enhanced-rate state, on a large enough loan.
A 300 tonne unit with canning, NE and Himalayan state, on a ₹2 crore-plus term loan
Worked out here from the rate below, not a total any single document prints on its own.
The capital half of that is now large enough to pass ₹1 crore on its own, which is the change this site had wrong until 14 September 2026. What has not changed is the shape of the mistake in the quote. It is not one undifferentiated cheque: the second line is interest relief spread over seven years of loan repayments, not money paid to you. It needs a term loan big enough for the subvention to reach its own ceiling. It needs enhanced-rate geography. And it needs a farm at the top of NHB’s capacity band, which is a large commercial operation, not a starter unit. Work the arithmetic yourself against any number a vendor quotes you, using the figures on this site and the clause each one carries.