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 Registrar held that failure to attach mandatory declarations in incorporation filings violates Section 7 of the Companies Act. Maximum penalties were imposed under the residuary provision for non-compliance.
The authority held that non-filing of annual returns within the prescribed time violates Section 92(4). In the absence of any response, statutory penalties were imposed on both the company and its directors.
Observing prolonged non-compliance with annual return filing requirements, the authority levied penalties up to the statutory maximum. The default was held proved due to absence of any response.
ROC Pune imposed penalties for failure to disclose required details in MGT-14 while issuing shares. Relief under Section 446B was granted due to start-up and small company status.
The Registrar held that non-filing of annual returns violates Section 92(4) of the Companies Act. Monetary penalties were imposed on the company and its officers for continued non-compliance.
The Registrar held that non-filing of e-Form INC-22A constitutes a violation of Rule 25A read with Section 450. Maximum penalties were imposed due to continued default and non-response to notice.
Authorities held that non-attachment of the Board’s Report to annual financial statements violates Section 134. The company and its directors were penalised due to complete non-response to statutory notices.
Failure to comply with statutory requirements for financial statements resulted in penalties under Section 134(8). Directors were held personally liable due to lack of response to the show cause notice.
ROC imposed penalty for failure to file mandatory DIR-3 KYC, leading to DIN deactivation. The order reinforces strict compliance with director KYC requirements to avoid maximum penalties.
The adjudicating authority held that non-filing of Form SH-7 violated Section 64 of the Companies Act. Penalties were imposed on the company and the officer in default despite claims of technical issues.
