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...
Authorities held that non-maintenance of a consolidated register of members at the registered office violates Section 88, justifying monetary penalties on the company and its officers.
The Registrar of Companies imposed penalties for non-filing of AOC-4 for two consecutive financial years. The key takeaway is that financial difficulty is not a valid defence for statutory filing defaults.
The adjudicating authority held that non-filing of Form AOC-4 for consecutive years violates Section 137 of the Companies Act. Financial difficulty was rejected as a valid defence, and penalties were upheld against both the company and its officers.
India’s tax laws are adapting to platforms, creators, and cross-border digital services. This piece explains how income-tax provisions, equalisation levy, and GST rules attempt to capture digital value and where complexity still hampers certainty and ease of compliance.
The ROC held that undertaking new activities without prior amendment of the Memorandum breaches Section 4(1)(c). Even subsequent regularisation does not erase liability for the period of non-compliance.
The order addresses an auditor’s omission to flag registered charges despite contrary financial disclosures. It confirms that such reporting lapses invite penalties under company law.
The Registrar held that failure to display the exact registered office address on the company signboard violates Section 12 of the Companies Act. Even after rectification, penalties were upheld for the period during which the default continued.
The company admitted procedural non-compliance in disclosures linked to securities issuance and sought adjudication voluntarily. Despite the absence of mala fide intent, penalties were imposed for violation of capital-raising rules.
The order underscores that MCA records are public and relied upon by stakeholders, making precision in filings non-negotiable. Any incorrect particulars can invite penalties on both the company and the signatory.
The ROC ruled that filing an annual return with wrong AGM dates violates statutory obligations. Subsequent requests to mark the form defective do not nullify penalty liability.
