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 : The authority imposed penalties after finding the company failed to hold its first board meeting within 30 days of incorporation. ...
Company Law : The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting indi...
Company Law : The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non...
Company Law : Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limit...
Company Law : Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting l...
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of law. The authority granted relief by imposing only 25% of the maximum penalty due to absence of malafide intent.
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering the unintentional nature of the default.
The case involved delayed approval for appointing a non-resident whole-time director. Authorities held that the 90-day period must be calculated from the date of appointment, leading to penalties for non-compliance.
The authority penalized the company and directors for non-functional registered office. The case highlights strict compliance requirements under Section 12.
The ROC penalized the company and its officer for filing incorrect AGM details in a statutory return. It held that accuracy of e-forms is mandatory and errors attract penalty despite later correction.
The ROC penalized the company and its directors for not filing financial statements within the prescribed timeline. It held that non-compliance with mandatory filing obligations attracts strict penalties.
A company was penalized for filing incorrect details in MGT-7 despite claiming a clerical mistake. The ruling clarifies that errors in statutory filings attract penalties even if later corrected.
ROC imposed a ₹10,000 penalty for incorrect AOC-4 XBRL filing due to errors in attachments and certification. The ruling reinforces strict liability for accuracy in MCA e-forms.
The authority penalized the Managing Director for incorrectly reporting the AGM date in MGT-7. It held that even clerical errors violate Rule 8(3), attracting Section 450 where no specific penalty exists.
ROC imposed heavy penalty for failing to appoint a Company Secretary within six months. The ruling stresses strict adherence to Section 203 timelines.
