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 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.
The adjudicating authority imposed penalties after a company circulated a private placement offer letter before filing the required board resolution with the Registrar, violating Rule 14(8) of the securities rules.
The authority imposed penalties after a company filed Form PAS-3 35 days late following a rights issue allotment. The order highlights the mandatory 30-day deadline for filing return of allotment under Section 39.
The ROC held that filing the return of allotment beyond the 15-day statutory limit violates Section 42 and imposed penalties on the company and responsible officers.
ROC imposed a ₹2 lakh penalty after a company failed to file consolidated financial statements in Form AOC-4 CFS. The order emphasizes mandatory filing obligations under Section 137 of the Companies Act.
ROC Gwalior penalized a company for failing to file Consolidated Financial Statements in Form AOC-4 CFS for FY 2017-18 as required under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights that incorrect disclosure in statutory filings and omission of CFS constitutes a compliance violation. Penalties were imposed on both the company and its directors.
ROC held that failure to deposit dividend in a separate bank account within five days of declaration violates Section 123(4), attracting penalty under Section 450.
ROC held that failure to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in the PAS-3 attachment violates Rule 14(6), attracting penalty under Section 450 of the Companies Act.
The Registrar of Companies imposed penalties after a company filed its annual return 245 days late in violation of Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite claims of an inadvertent procedural lapse, the adjudicating authority held the company and its directors liable and levied monetary penalties.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to disclose the occupation of allottees in Form PAS-3 violates Rule 12(2). A penalty was imposed under Section 450 for non-compliance with disclosure requirements.