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 ROC imposed penalties after finding that CSR funds meant for ongoing projects were wrongly spent and not transferred to Schedule VII funds. The key takeaway is that improper use of unspent CSR amounts triggers liability under Section 135(5).
The ROC Bengaluru imposed penalties for a 94-day delay in conducting the required board meeting, citing violation of Section 173(1). The order directs payment within 90 days and outlines the appeal process
The adjudicating authority held that failure to include an email ID on the company letterhead violated Section 12(3)(c), imposing reduced penalties due to small-company status.
Authorities imposed penalties after finding continued failure to file financial statements for FY 2019-20. The order directs rectification, personal payment by officers, and outlines appeal and compliance requirements.
ROC held that company failed to file financial statements for FY 2021-22 and imposed penalties on entity and its directors. Order directs rectification and payment within 90 days.
The ROC penalised the company and directors for not filing financial statements for FY 2020-21. The order highlights statutory penalties, compliance directives, and timelines for rectification.
RoC Kolkata levied penalties for failure to file FY 2018-19 financial statements, holding the company and directors liable under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act.
ROC Kolkata levies penalties for failure to file financial statements under Section 137(3), directing rectification and payment within prescribed timelines.
ROC Kolkata levies penalties for prolonged non-filing of financial statements, directing rectification and payment within statutory timelines.
The ROC held that failure to reflect authorised capital alteration in every copy of the Memorandum violated Section 15(1), resulting in a penalty on the company and its directors. The ruling reinforces strict compliance with documentation updates.
