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...
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.
