The State Tax Department allowed taxpayers to pay profession tax using PAN after system migration caused portal access issues. Registration and return filing were temporarily disabled for March 2026 compliance.
Despite a 595-day delay in filing financial statements under Section 137, ROC imposed no penalty because the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice. The ruling highlights relief available under Section 454(2).
ROC levied a ₹2 lakh penalty on the company and ₹50,000 each on directors for failure to file annual returns. The decision highlights consequences of prolonged non-compliance under Section 92.
ROC Chennai imposed the maximum statutory penalty after a company failed to file financial statements for FY 2014–15 and did not respond to notices. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 137 compliance.
ROC Chennai penalized a company and its directors for filing the annual return 877 days late under Section 92. The order highlights strict enforcement of statutory filing timelines.
Despite delay in filing financial statements under Section 137, the ROC imposed zero penalty since the company filed the documents before adjudication notice. The ruling underscores that timely rectification can prevent penal consequences.
PFRDA has revised the charge structure for Points of Presence under NPS schemes, introducing onboarding and AUM-based annual charges. The circular also clarifies exemptions for e-NPS subscribers and dormant accounts.
PFRDA has introduced a new framework reclassifying corporate participants in NPS into Government Entities and Legal Entities. The circular mandates certification and compliance requirements, failing which entities will face corporate-sector charges.
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.
