Company Law : The FAQ clarifies that the Companies Act, 2013 does not restrict adjournment of a duly convened and commenced AGM. An adjourned AG...
Company Law : This FAQ examines the statutory authorities empowered to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting under the Companies Act, 2013. I...
Company Law : The 2025 amendment replaces annual DIR-3 KYC filings with a triennial compliance framework. Directors now need to file KYC once ev...
Company Law : The article explains when private companies can rely on MCA exemptions to borrow through board approval alone. It highlights the b...
Company Law : The article explains how Audit Committee, Board, and shareholder approvals apply to related party transactions under corporate law...
Company Law : The MCA has widened CSR eligibility by recognizing subscriptions to Zero Coupon Zero Principal Instruments as a valid CSR activity...
Company Law : The initiative addresses inefficiencies in the current filing system and proposes consolidation and automation. It highlights a sh...
Company Law : NFRA found major deficiencies in audit documentation and archival practices. The report highlights the need for stronger controls ...
Company Law : The inspection report highlights deficiencies in audit documentation, independence monitoring and compliance with auditing standar...
Company Law : The regulator found that the audit firm lacked an effective monitoring mechanism to ensure firmwide independence policies were pro...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : That the period of lockdown ordered by the Central Government and the State Governments including the period as may be extended ei...
Company Law : The MCA has amended the valuation rules to require Registered Valuer Organisations to maintain a minimum paid-up capital of ₹25 ...
Company Law : The Registrar of Companies penalized the company and its authorized signatory after an incorrect document was attached with Form A...
Company Law : MCA amends Schedule VII of the Companies Act to include subscription to zero coupon zero principal instruments on Social Stock Exc...
Company Law : MCA has amended the CSR Rules to recognize zero coupon zero principal instruments issued by Social Stock Exchange-listed NPOs. The...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai held that repeated return of official notices proved non-maintenance of a registered office under Section 12(1) of the ...
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.
The ROC held that although the annual return was filed late, the company rectified the default before the show cause notice was issued. Hence, under Section 454(2) of the Companies Act, no penalty was imposed.
The ROC penalized a company and its director for failing to disclose PAN, occupation, and email details of allottees in PAS-3 returns. The violation attracted penalty under Section 450 of the Companies Act due to absence of a specific penalty provision.
The MCA amended AS 22 to incorporate provisions related to OECD Pillar Two global minimum tax rules. The amendment exempts companies from recognising deferred tax assets or liabilities linked to Pillar Two income taxes.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return within the prescribed time under Section 92 of the Companies Act, directing them to rectify the default.
The ROC Patna imposed penalties on two directors for violating Section 155 of the Companies Act by possessing more than one Director Identification Number, directing rectification and payment within 90 days.
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.
