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 of Companies held that continued non-filing of annual return violated Section 92(4) of the Companies Act, leading to penalties on both the company and its managing director.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its managing director for failure to file annual returns under Sections 92(4) and 92(5) of the Companies Act, 2013. The order highlights strict consequences for continued annual compliance defaults.
ROC Patna imposed penalties on a Nidhi company and its Managing Director for failure to file the annual return under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. The annual return remained unfiled despite issuance of adjudication notice and hearing opportunity.
ROC Patna penalized a company and its Managing Director for failing to file the annual return for FY 2023-24. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 92 compliance under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Patna imposed penalty under Section 92(5) after the company failed to file its annual return for FY 2019-20. The authority also noted absence of representation during adjudication proceedings.
ROC Mumbai-II imposed penalty under Section 450 after a company incorrectly mentioned the AGM date in Form AOC-4 XBRL. The order held the director responsible for ensuring accuracy of e-form contents.
ROC Chandigarh penalised a company and its directors after finding that financial statements and Board Reports were not approved through Board resolutions as required under Section 179(3). The order held that continued non-compliance attracted penalties under Section 450 of the Companies Act.
ROC Chandigarh penalised a company and its directors for not filing financial statements from FY 2017-18 to 2022-23 within the statutory timeline. The order held that continuous default under Section 137 attracted penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Chandigarh penalized a company and its directors under Section 92(5) of the Companies Act for non-filing of annual returns from FY 2017-18 to 2022-23. The directors were each fined the maximum penalty permitted under the law.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that depreciation on building assets was not charged in the financial statements in violation of Accounting Standard-6. The authority held that failure to report the non-compliance affected the true and fair view of accounts.
