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 authority penalized the company for failing to hold the required fourth Board Meeting. It clarified that absence of a specific penalty provision attracts Section 450 as a residual penalty.
The adjudicating authority penalized a company for not maintaining the required number of directors liable to retire by rotation. The violation continued for over 700 days before being rectified.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to file the board resolution within the prescribed 30-day period violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. The company and its directors were penalized.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to file the board resolution within 30 days violated Section 117 of the Companies Act. As a result, the company and its directors were penalized.
The ROC imposed the maximum statutory penalty after the company failed to file Form MGT-14 for the board resolution approving financial statements. Non-compliance with Section 117 led to penalties on both the company and its directors.
ROC Mumbai penalised the authorized signatory after financial statements were mistakenly filed in Form AOC-4 instead of AOC-4 XBRL. The order reiterates that correct statutory forms must be used for compliance filings.
ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after a company incorrectly declared that CSR provisions were not applicable while filing AOC-4 XBRL. The order holds the authorized signatory responsible for accuracy of e-forms.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for incorrect financial information reported in the AOC-4 XBRL filing. The order emphasizes that authorized signatories are responsible for the accuracy of e-forms filed with MCA.
The adjudicating authority held that incorrect information in Form AOC-4 XBRL violated Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Penalties were imposed on the director and the certifying CA responsible for the filing.
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).
