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 Mumbai penalized a director after Form AOC-4 contained an incorrect AGM due date. The order emphasizes that directors are resp...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after finding that an individual held two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai penalized a Whole Time Director for filing Form DIR-12 with an incorrect CFO appointment date. The order reiterates tha...
Company Law : The adjudicating authority held that an unlisted public company violated Section 29 by continuing to issue and transfer shares in ...
Company Law : The order emphasizes that delayed filing may regularize compliance but does not extinguish the offence committed during the period...
The authority penalized the company for not identifying SBOs despite clear evidence of control and influence. It held that such identification is mandatory under Section 90. The ruling reinforces transparency in ownership structures.
The authority penalized the company for not appointing a Secretarial Auditor despite meeting statutory thresholds. It held that compliance under Section 204 is mandatory. The ruling reinforces strict corporate governance obligations.
The authority penalized the company for using funds before allotment and filing statutory returns. It held that Section 42(4) strictly prohibits such utilization. The ruling reinforces compliance in private placements.
The authority penalized the company for failing to transfer unspent CSR funds within the statutory deadline. It held that delayed compliance still attracts penalties. The ruling emphasizes strict timelines under CSR provisions.
The issue involved failure to disclose Director Identification Numbers in financial statements. The authority held that such omission violates Section 158 and attracts penalty.
The issue involved omission of Director Identification Numbers in financial statements. The authority held that such non-compliance attracts penalty under Section 172.
The ROC held that failure to maintain a functional registered office violates Section 12 of the Companies Act. Returned notices proved non-compliance, leading to penalties on the company and directors.
The issue was whether SBO exists without majority shareholding. The authority held that control and influence also determine SBO, making non-disclosure a violation.
The authority penalized directors for executing related party transactions without fresh or valid approvals. It held that reliance on outdated resolutions violates Section 188. The ruling stresses strict approval requirements.
The issue involved non-appointment of an internal auditor despite meeting turnover criteria. The authority held that failure to comply attracts penalty under Section 450.
