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...
The order deals with failure to attach a registered valuer’s report while filing PAS-3 for debenture allotment. It confirms that such procedural lapses attract penalties under company law.
The ROC held that failure to attach a registered valuer’s report with Form PAS-3 violates Section 39 of the Companies Act. Even a procedural lapse attracts penalty, though relief may apply to eligible startups.
The authority held that non-filing of Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts attracts penalty under section 117(2). Continued default led to penalties on both company and directors.
The authority held that failure to file DIR-3 KYC violates Rule 12A and attracts penalty under section 450. DIN deactivation does not absolve ongoing compliance responsibility.
The authority held that wrong disclosure of AGM details in Form MGT-7 attracts penalty under section 450. Accuracy in e-filings is the responsibility of the signatory.
The adjudicating authority held that filing AOC-4 after prolonged delay attracts penalty despite eventual compliance. Rectification beyond statutory timelines does not grant immunity.
The authority held that non-filing of the annual return for FY 2023–24 attracts penalty under section 92(5). Continued default led to penalties on both the company and directors.
The authority held that late filing of PAS-6 violates Rule 9A(8) and attracts penalty under section 450. Subsequent compliance does not erase earlier default.
Failure to file PAS-6 within time attracted penalties under section 450 despite subsequent compliance. Timely half-yearly reporting of share capital remains mandatory.
The adjudicating authority clarified that belated compliance after a show cause notice cannot nullify statutory violations. Penalties were upheld despite later rectification.
