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 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.
