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...
ROC Uttar Pradesh imposed penalties on a company and its directors for non-filing of financial statements for FY 2019-20. The order highlights that incorrect attachments in Form AOC-4 cannot cure statutory non-compliance under Section 137 of the Companies Act.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for failure to file financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights that prolonged filing defaults can attract maximum statutory penalties.
The ROC imposed the maximum statutory penalty on a Nidhi company for non-filing of financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The Managing Director was also penalized separately for continuing default.
ROC Patna imposed penalties on a Nidhi company and its Managing Director for failure to file financial statements under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. The balance sheet remained unfiled despite adjudication notice and hearing opportunity.
The ROC penalized a Nidhi company and its Managing Director for non-filing of financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The adjudication order explains how failure to file the FY 2022-23 balance sheet resulted in penalties on both the company and its managing director. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance obligations for annual financial statement filings.
The ROC imposed penalties on a Nidhi company and its Managing Director for non-filing of financial statements under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for failing to file financial statements for FY 2016-17 under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights that continuous non-compliance can attract maximum statutory penalties.
ROC Haryana ruled that non-transfer of unspent CSR amount within six months from the close of the financial year constituted a violation attracting adjudication penalty proceedings.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for non-filing of annual return for FY 2018-19. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 92 compliance under the Companies Act, 2013.
