Company Law : MCA has revised the Director KYC framework, requiring DIR-3 KYC (Web) only once every three financial years. The changes reduce co...
Company Law : Section 158 makes quoting Director Identification Number (DIN) mandatory in statutory filings. Non-compliance can lead to substant...
Company Law : The MCA has replaced annual DIR-3 KYC filings with a once-in-three-years framework. Most DIN holders who complied in FY 2025-26 ar...
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...
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 : While noting the delay in filing the writ petition, the Court entertained the challenge because the assessment orders lacked a DIN...
Goods and Services Tax : The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a GST assessment order without a DIN number is invalid and non-est. The matter was remande...
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...
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 Pune held that possession of more than one Director Identification Number constitutes a violation of Section 155 of the Compan...
Company Law : The ROC Kolkata held that possessing more than one Director Identification Number violates Section 155 of the Companies Act, attra...
Company Law : ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty under Section 159 after a director was found holding two DINs simultaneously in violation of Section ...
Company Law : The ROC Mumbai penalized an individual for possessing two Director Identification Numbers contrary to Section 155 of the Companies...
The issue involved duplication of DIN due to ignorance during incorporation. The authority imposed penalty despite voluntary disclosure, reinforcing strict compliance requirements.
Holding more than one DIN violates statutory provisions regardless of intent. The adjudicating authority imposed maximum penalty despite claim of inadvertent error.
The issue involved holding two DINs in violation of law. The authority imposed penalty considering the extended duration of default despite eventual rectification.
The case involved holding two DINs for 1462 days in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering mitigating circumstances.
The director voluntarily disclosed the violation and surrendered the duplicate DIN. The authority reduced the penalty to 25% of the maximum due to non-repetitive default. This highlights the benefit of proactive compliance.
Even though the duplicate DIN was surrendered, the violation period attracted penalty. The ruling clarifies that rectification does not eliminate liability for past default. Timely compliance is essential.
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of law. The authority granted relief by imposing only 25% of the maximum penalty due to absence of malafide intent.
The case involved obtaining a duplicate DIN in violation of statutory provisions. The authority imposed a reduced penalty considering the unintentional nature of the default.
ROC Bangalore imposed penalty for 1,592 days of continuing default after a second DIN was obtained contrary to statutory provisions.
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.
