The Companies Act 2013 is a crucial legislation in India governing the incorporation, functioning, and management of companies. Learn about the key provisions, compliance requirements, and legal framework under the Companies Act 2013.
CA, CS, CMA : A comprehensive guide covering 175 legal compliances for July 2026 under FEMA, Income Tax, GST, SEBI, Companies Act, Labour Laws, ...
Company Law : The Companies Act, 2013 requires most companies to hold four Board Meetings annually, while OPCs, Small Companies, and Dormant Com...
Company Law : This guide provides a complete AGM compliance tracker covering pre-AGM, AGM-day, post-AGM, and IEPF obligations under the Companie...
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 : Learn how the Companies Act, 2013 regulates managerial remuneration through profit-linked limits, approval requirements, and gover...
Company Law : MCA has cautioned stakeholders against phishing calls, WhatsApp messages, emails, fake websites, and ZIP attachments impersonating...
Company Law : ICSI has urged the Government to amend the law to allow Company Secretaries in Practice to appear before DRTs and DRATs. It argues...
Company Law : ICSI has urged the MCA to ensure eligible companies comply with Section 203 by appointing Whole-time Company Secretaries. The repr...
Corporate Law : NSO has launched the Annual Survey of Incorporated Services Sector Enterprises (ASISSE) to collect comprehensive economic and oper...
Company Law : ICSI has requested the MCA to grant compliance relaxations following technical disruptions caused by the Data Centre fire. The pro...
Company Law : Madhya Pradesh HC dismissed a winding up petition, holding that a bona fide dispute over liability required adjudication before th...
Company Law : NCLT retained the freeze on assets citing serious SFIO findings but ordered defreezing of the salary account and family members' a...
Corporate Law : The Court ruled that, without a transfer application and parallel insolvency proceedings, shifting a winding-up case to NCLT was u...
Company Law : NCLT permitted stakeholder meetings after accepting clarifications on forfeited warrants, disclosures, and scheme compliance under...
Company Law : The NCLAT held that CFO nominees must satisfy the eligibility requirements under Section 203 of the Companies Act. It set aside th...
Company Law : MCA has allowed companies to file Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 without additional fees until 31 July 2026 due to disruptions caused b...
Company Law : MCA notifies the New Development Bank under Section 2(11)(ii) of the Companies Act, 2013, specifying it as a body corporate for th...
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...
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its directors after finding that board meeting minute books were not maintained in accordance with Secretarial Standards. The authority held that absence of serial numbering in minute books violated Section 118 of the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Chennai held that an Additional Director who was not regularised at the AGM could not be treated as an officer in default during the violation period. The ruling highlights the importance of director status while fixing liability under the Companies Act.
The article explains how buy-back taxation shifted from company-level tax to shareholder taxation under the Finance Act, 2024 and Income-tax Act, 2025. It also discusses additional tax implications for promoters under Section 69(2).
ROC Delhi imposed penalties under Section 450 after a company failed to appoint an internal auditor despite crossing prescribed financial limits. The order held that absence of professional guidnce is not a valid ground for waiver of penalty.
ROC Delhi imposed penalties after a company failed to form Audit and Nomination Committees despite crossing the prescribed turnover threshold. The order held that statutory committee requirements under Sections 177 and 178 are mandatory.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalties after a company incorrectly reported that consolidated financial statements were not applicable in its AOC-4 XBRL filing. The order held that inaccurate MCA filings attract liability even if the mistake is later admitted and rectified.
ROC Kolkata penalized a company and its directors for not appointing a woman director after turnover crossed ₹300 crore. The order clarifies that operational difficulties and delays in identifying candidates cannot excuse statutory non-compliance.
ROC Uttar Pradesh imposed penalties under Section 134(8) after finding that the company’s directors failed to provide comments on statutory auditor qualifications. The company and officers were held liable for non-compliance with Section 134(3)(f) of the Companies Act.
ROC Uttar Pradesh penalised the company and officers for failing to provide comments on auditor qualifications in the Board’s Report for FY 2019-20. The order held the company in violation of Section 134(3)(f) of the Companies Act.
The Registrar of Companies found that the company remained without a whole-time Company Secretary from 2014 to 2020 in violation of mandatory legal requirements. Penalties were imposed on both the company and directors under Section 203(5).
