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 Bangalore imposed penalty under Sections 155 and 159 of the Companies Act after a director inadvertently obtained a second DIN. The default continued for 807 days before rectification.
ROC Bangalore imposed a penalty for 907 days of continuing default due to acquisition of a second DIN, holding it contravened Section 155.
The adjudicating officer found that holding multiple DINs contravened Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the director’s claim of inadvertence and voluntary surrender, a reduced penalty of 50% of the maximum was levied.
The Bill seeks retrospective validation of assessment orders despite DIN-quoting errors. Assessments linked to a lawfully generated DIN may no longer be invalidated on technical grounds.
The High Court upheld the GST assessment order, ruling that delay in filing the writ and presence of an auto-generated reference number defeated claims of invalid DIN and unsigned notices.
The ROC Bangalore held that obtaining and retaining a second DIN in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act attracts penalty under Section 159. Despite the error being inadvertent and later rectified, the prolonged default of 3075 days resulted in a reduced but substantial penalty.
The ROC Bangalore imposed penalty for holding two Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. Even though the second DIN was obtained inadvertently and later surrendered, the continuing default for 1227 days attracted adjudication and monetary penalty.
The amendment clarifies that minor defects in quoting the DIN will not invalidate assessments. As long as the order references a computer-generated DIN in any manner, procedural lapses will not defeat otherwise valid proceedings.
The authority held that failure to file DIR-3 KYC violates Rule 12A and attracts penalty under section 450. DIN deactivation does not absolve ongoing compliance responsibility.
The court examined whether assessment orders could survive when DRP directions lacked a DIN. It held that such directions were invalid, leading to dismissal of the Revenue’s appeals.
