Company Law : Registrar of Companies clarified that Section 155 absolutely prohibits holding more than one DIN. Penalties were imposed even thou...
Company Law : Holding more than one DIN is treated as a continuing default under law. Even genuine mistakes attract penalties, though early corr...
Income Tax : The new circular allows flexible DIN referencing instead of strict quoting. However, it does not validate cases with complete abse...
Company Law : The process for obtaining a Director Identification Number involves filing SPICe+ or DIR-3 forms with required documents and digit...
Company Law : The amendment changes KYC filing from annual to a three-year cycle. It clarifies timelines and reduces compliance burden while mai...
Company Law : The government clarified that shell companies are not defined in company law, but inactive entities are removed through statutory ...
Company Law : Applying for a Director Identification Number (DIN) is a crucial step for individuals aspiring to become directors in Indian compa...
Company Law : DINs eligible to be de-flagged on expiry of the period of disqualification are in the process of verification. Necessary action sh...
Company Law : BJP professional cell, Mumbai has requested FM that The KYC for DIN Of Director should be once in 5 years or linked to be Aadhar e...
Company Law : MCA Removed ‘present Residential Address’ of Directors, KMP and Designated Partners (DPs) Till 18.08.2020, With the he...
Goods and Services Tax : The High Court upheld the GST assessment order, ruling that delay in filing the writ and presence of an auto-generated reference n...
Income Tax : The court examined whether assessment orders could survive when DRP directions lacked a DIN. It held that such directions were inv...
Corporate Law : The Court examined whether a sanction lacking a DIN could sustain income-tax proceedings. It held such sanction invalid and set as...
Income Tax : The court set aside a rectification order passed without a DIN and beyond the statutory time limit. The ruling underscores that no...
Income Tax : ITAT Chennai ruled that an assessment order issued without a Document Identification Number violates CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 and...
Company Law : The ROC Mumbai penalized an individual for possessing two Director Identification Numbers contrary to Section 155 of the Companies...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed penalty for possessing duplicate Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The ruling highli...
Company Law : The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, hold...
Company Law : This case examines whether an unintentional duplicate DIN attracts penalties under company law. The authority held that liability ...
Company Law : The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting indi...
The ROC Mumbai penalized an individual for possessing two Director Identification Numbers contrary to Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling highlights that obtaining duplicate DINs, even inadvertently, can attract continuing penalties under Section 159.
Registrar of Companies clarified that Section 155 absolutely prohibits holding more than one DIN. Penalties were imposed even though the duplicate DIN was later surrendered through DIR-5.
ROC Mumbai imposed penalty for possessing duplicate Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The ruling highlights that even inadvertent duplicate DIN allotment can attract continuing penalties.
The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, holding that duration of default justifies financial consequences despite bona fide intent.
This case examines whether an unintentional duplicate DIN attracts penalties under company law. The authority held that liability is strict, imposing a ₹50,000 penalty despite acknowledging bona fide conduct.
Holding more than one DIN is treated as a continuing default under law. Even genuine mistakes attract penalties, though early correction may reduce the financial impact.
The issue centered on omission of DIN details by directors in financial filings. The ruling imposed penalties while exempting individuals not associated during the default period.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to disclose DIN in financial statements, violating Section 158. The key takeaway is that non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements attracts monetary penalties under Section 172.
Failure to mention DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The authority imposed penalties while limiting liability to responsible officers.
Failure to disclose DIN in signed financial statements was held to violate Section 158. The ROC imposed penalties while limiting liability to responsible officers only.
