The ROC penalized a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return for FY 2020–21. Continued non-compliance with Section 92 triggered penalties under the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority found that the company increased paid-up share capital but failed to timely file PAS-3. Penalties were imposed under the Companies Act for violating statutory filing requirements.
The ROC penalized a company and its directors after the gap between board meetings exceeded the statutory limit of 120 days. The violation attracted penalties under Section 173(1) read with Section 450 of the Companies Act.
The ROC penalised a director for obtaining a second Director Identification Number in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act. The order highlights that holding multiple DINs attracts penalties even if the duplication was inadvertent.
The ROC penalised a company and its officers for violating the resident director requirement under Section 149(3) of the Companies Act. The ruling highlights strict enforcement where non-compliance continued for 2297 days.
This article explains the five most frequent issues arising in modern income tax assessments, including unexplained cash deposits, Section 68 credits, data mismatches, cash transaction penalties, and non-compliance with notices.
RBIs draft amendment introduces stronger customer protection rules for electronic banking fraud in rural co-operative banks. Customers may get zero liability or compensation for small-value frauds if reported promptly.
This article explains how Internal Committees under the POSH Act should handle harassment complaints, including evidence collection, neutrality checks, and drafting legally sound investigation reports.
Urban Co-operative Banks must send instant SMS alerts for transactions exceeding ₹500 and email alerts wherever available. The rule aims to help customers quickly detect and report unauthorised transactions.
ITAT Panaji refused to condone an 803-day delay in filing appeals against TDS default orders. The Tribunal held that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation and therefore dismissed the appeals as time-barred.
