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 adjudicating authority held that omission of a registered valuer’s report in PAS-3 filings attracts penalty under section 39(5). Voluntary disclosure does not eliminate statutory liability.
The authority held that inability to produce Board and AGM minutes constitutes non-compliance despite historical flood damage. Fixed penalties were upheld as mandatory under the Act.
The Registrar of Companies, Kolkata passed an adjudication order under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, imposing penalties for violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies (Registration Offices and Fees) Rules, 2014 read with Section 450 of the Act. The case arose from the filing of an e-Form MGT-7A containing incorrect particulars, where the […]
Stressing that the MCA registry is a public and relied-upon record, the authority imposed penalties for inaccurate disclosures. The ruling underscores strict compliance expectations for statutory e-filings.
The authority held that filing an e-form with wrong particulars constitutes a completed contravention. Later requests to mark the form as defective do not eliminate penalty liability.
An adjudication order confirms penalties for violation of statutory annual return requirements under the Companies Act. The ruling highlights that directors are personally liable when compliance defaults continue unrectified.
An adjudication order confirms personal penalties on officers in default for breach of Section 92 filing obligations. The ruling highlights that directors remain accountable when statutory filings are ignored.
The Registrar imposed penalties for failure to file Form MGT-7 within the prescribed time. The order reiterates strict compliance with annual return filing requirements despite concessional treatment for eligible entities.
The order holds that failure to issue share certificates within the prescribed two-month period attracts penalties under Section 56(6). Subsequent rectification does not erase the original default.
ROC held that filing an AOC-4 with an incorrect AGM date constitutes a completed default. Subsequent rectification or marking the form as defective does not erase penalty liability.
