ROC Mumbai held that omission of mandatory details in AOC-4 makes the authorised signatory liable. A ₹10,000 penalty was imposed for violation of filing rules.
The case examined whether the Assessing Officer could reject a DCF valuation. The Tribunal held that commercial valuation choices, if legally prescribed and supported, cannot be second-guessed.
The adjudicating authority held that omission of mandatory documents and incorrect disclosure in PAS-3 violated Section 42. Monetary penalties were imposed with directions to rectify the filing.
Penalties were levied after directors’ DINs were found deactivated for non-compliance with Rule 12A. The key takeaway is that even procedural defaults invite statutory penalties.
The Registrar held that failure to attach mandatory declarations in incorporation filings violates Section 7 of the Companies Act. Maximum penalties were imposed under the residuary provision for non-compliance.
The authority held that non-filing of annual returns within the prescribed time violates Section 92(4). In the absence of any response, statutory penalties were imposed on both the company and its directors.
Observing prolonged non-compliance with annual return filing requirements, the authority levied penalties up to the statutory maximum. The default was held proved due to absence of any response.
ROC Pune imposed penalties for failure to disclose required details in MGT-14 while issuing shares. Relief under Section 446B was granted due to start-up and small company status.
The Registrar held that non-filing of annual returns violates Section 92(4) of the Companies Act. Monetary penalties were imposed on the company and its officers for continued non-compliance.
The Registrar held that non-filing of e-Form INC-22A constitutes a violation of Rule 25A read with Section 450. Maximum penalties were imposed due to continued default and non-response to notice.
