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...
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.
ROC held that although financial statements were filed with a 229-day delay, no penalty was imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
ROC Chennai held that despite a 199-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed as the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice was issued.
ROC Chennai ruled that despite a 565-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed since the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice.
ROC Chennai held that despite a 930-day delay in filing Form MGT-7A, no penalty would be imposed as the company filed the return before the adjudication notice was issued.
The ROC Chennai penalized a company and its directors for failing to file a board resolution within 30 days as required under Section 117. Although the form was filed after 125 days, reduced penalties were granted because the company qualified as a Small Company.
ROC Chennai held that although the annual return was filed 95 days late, no penalty was imposed because the company rectified the default before the adjudication notice, attracting relief under Section 454(2).
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.
