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 regulator examined filing of statutory forms with incorrect financial figures. It held that later correction does not erase liability for filing defective information.
Filing a statutory e-form with incorrect details was held to be a completed offence. Even clerical errors can attract penalties, irrespective of subsequent correction requests.
The adjudicating authority held that non-affixation of the company’s name at its registered office violates Section 12, warranting penalties on the company and directors.
The adjudicating authority imposed the statutory maximum penalty after holding that non-filing of INC-22 for years violated Section 12 of the Companies Act.
The authority held that not maintaining a functional registered office violates Section 12, justifying the statutory maximum penalty on the company and directors.
ROC held that appointing an Independent Director for a third consecutive term violates section 149(11). Even voluntary disclosure did not shield the company and officers from maximum penalties under section 172.
Non-filing of mandatory board resolutions approving accounts led to monetary penalties. The order reiterates that approval of accounts must be promptly reported to the regulator.
ROC imposed the highest penalty for failure to file MGT-14 approving financial statements. The order reiterates strict enforcement of section 117 timelines.
Non-filing of mandatory MGT-14 for approval of accounts resulted in statutory penalties. The order reinforces strict compliance with board resolution filing requirements.
The ROC imposed the highest permissible penalty for not filing MGT-14 on approval of accounts. The order reiterates that continued non-compliance with section 117 invites strict financial consequences.
