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 ROC levied penalties after the company failed to file financial statements for four consecutive years. With no response to notices, statutory fines were imposed on both the company and directors under Section 137(3).
An inquiry revealed non-filing of financial statements, and the company failed to respond to the show cause notice. The ROC issued penalties on both the company and directors, reinforcing strict enforcement of Section 137.
The ROC penalised the company and its officers for failing to disclose title deed details in the Board Report. Although decriminalised for the relevant years, the violation was recorded and statutory penalties were imposed under Section 454.
The ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its director for an error in Form AOC-4 relating to consolidated financial statements. The order directs rectification and outlines payment and appeal procedures.
A company and its officer were penalized under Section 138 for failing to appoint an internal auditor for FY 2022-23 and 2023-24, with corrective measures and penalties mandated.
A company and its directors were penalized under Section 42(9) for filing the return of allotment 23 days late, highlighting the importance of timely compliance in private placements.
A company and its director were penalized under the Companies Act for appointing a non-resident managing director without prior Central Government approval. Rectification through resignation and post-facto sanction was required.
A company and its directors were penalized under Section 450 for distributing an excess interim dividend due to miscalculated tax provisions, highlighting the need for accurate financial reporting.
ROC Vijayawada imposed a penalty on the statutory auditor for not qualifying the report on uncharged depreciation, highlighting accountability under Section 143(3) of the Companies Act.
The ROC held that misstating the number of board meetings violates Section 134(3)(b), leading to penalties on the company and directors even when the error is clerical.
