Company Law : The submission of MSME-1 is not only a requirement of the Companies Act, but it also has implications on the Income Tax Act and af...
Company Law : Learn the consequences of not filing MSME Form 1 on time as illustrated by a recent penalty case. Understand the legal requirement...
Company Law : Delve into the conundrum surrounding Section 42(7) of the Companies Act 2013 as the ROC Delhi's adjudication order highlights the ...
Company Law : Explore the game-changing Companies (Listing of Equity Shares in Permissible Jurisdictions) Rules, 2024, paving the way for Indian...
Company Law : Explore penalty order under Sec. 135 of Companies Act, 2013 on AECOM India for CSR non-compliance. Learn consequences, key takeawa...
Company Law : MCA imposes ₹50,000 penalty on Xinpoming Technology for non-filing of DIR-3 KYC under Rule 12A. Appeal can be filed within 60 da...
Company Law : Penalty imposed on Sh. Laxit Awla under Section 165 of Companies Act, 2013, for exceeding directorship limits. Details on violatio...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court refuses interim relief against NFRA penalties imposed on CAs and CA firm in the Reliance Capital audit lapses cas...
Company Law : ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return within the prescribed time under Section 92 ...
Company Law : The ROC Patna imposed penalties on two directors for violating Section 155 of the Companies Act by possessing more than one Direct...
Company Law : The ROC penalized a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return for FY 2020–21. Continued non-compliance wit...
Company Law : The adjudicating authority found that the company increased paid-up share capital but failed to timely file PAS-3. Penalties were ...
Company Law : The ROC penalized a company and its director for failing to disclose PAN, occupation, and email details of allottees in PAS-3 retu...
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 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 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.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors after the annual return for FY 2022–23 remained unfiled, holding it a violation of Section 92 of the Companies Act.
ROC Patna penalised a company and its directors after the annual return for FY 2021–22 remained unfiled, holding it a violation of Section 92 of the Companies Act.
