ROC Kolkata penalised a private company and its directors for non-filing of annual returns under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. The adjudicating authority held that continued default in statutory filings attracted monetary penalties under Section 92(5).
ROC Kolkata penalized a company and its directors for delayed transfer of unspent CSR funds to the Swachh Bharat Kosh. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 135(7) compliance timelines under the Companies Act.
The DGFT has changed the import status of specified silver bars from “Free” to “Restricted” under ITC HS Codes 71069221 and 71069229. Importers must now comply with Policy Condition No. 7 of Chapter 71 under the revised import framework.
ROC Cuttack imposed penalties for failure to print mandatory contact information on company letterheads under Section 12(3)(c). The ruling stresses strict compliance with statutory disclosure requirements in official documents.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for violating Section 12(3)(c) of the Companies Act after finding that official letterheads omitted mandatory details such as telephone number, email, and website address.
ROC Cuttack penalised a company and its directors for not appointing a whole-time Chief Financial Officer despite paid-up capital exceeding the statutory threshold under the Companies Act.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after it failed to appoint mandatory independent directors despite crossing the prescribed turnover threshold. The authority held that prolonged non-compliance under Section 149(4) attracted maximum penalty under Section 172 of the Companies Act.
ROC Delhi penalised a company and its directors after special resolutions relating to preferential allotment were filed years beyond the statutory deadline. The authority held that repeated delays under Section 117 attracted maximum penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its Managing Director for omitting disclosure regarding compliance with Secretarial Standards in the Board Report. The authority held that the omission violated Section 118(10) read with Section 134(5)(f) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The Income Tax Department increased monetary thresholds for assigning cases between ITOs and D/ACITs in Delhi Region. The revised limits aim to streamline jurisdictional allocation and improve administrative efficiency in tax assessments.
