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...
SRA Systems Limited was not penalized for failing to file Form BEN-2 as the foreign shareholder was dissolved before the compliance date, absolving the company of liability.
ROC Pune imposed penalties under Section 203(5) of the Companies Act for not appointing a whole-time Company Secretary within six months after exceeding ₹10 crore paid-up capital.
Non-filing of FY 2020-21 Annual Return led to Rs. 1.48 lakh company and Rs. 50k officer penalty, highlighting strict compliance enforcement under Section 92(5).
ROC Mumbai imposed penalties for non-compliance with Section 12(1) of the Companies Act as the company failed to maintain its registered office despite change filings.
The ROC Kanpur imposed penalties for not maintaining consecutively numbered minutes, holding it as a breach of Section 118(11) and Secretarial Standards.
The ROC Mumbai levied ₹1 lakh each on a company and its directors for failing to maintain a registered office in violation of Section 12(1) of the Companies Act.
The Registrar ruled that income classified as “Other Income” under accounting standards does not amount to deviation from main business objects under the Companies Act.
The ROC Mumbai found no contravention under Section 4(1)(c) of the Companies Act after verifying that the company operated within its amended MoA, leading to no penalty.
ROC Mumbai penalizes Sweet Elephant Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and its director for non-filing of financial statements for FY 2020-21 under Section 137(3).
ROC Bangalore penalised Amagi Media Labs Ltd. and its directors for a 49-day delay in appointing a company secretary, violating Section 203(5) of the Companies Act, 2013.
