-
Reply
- Views (4550)
- Posted By: Ravinder 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4128)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (7161)
- Posted By: Ravi arora 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (6261)
- Posted By: Vijay oganiya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3423)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
A private company has husband and wife as only two directors as well as shareholders. There is no other shareholder. Husband is co
Read More
A private company has husband and wife as only two directors as well as shareholders. There is no other shareholder. Husband is continuing as a whole time director since 1996 as there was no fixed tenure in his appointment letter. The questions now are :1. Does the Company need to reappoint him with a tenure of 5 years now ? If yes, can he be reappointed now say. in December, 2014 or January, 2015 ? 2. Whether in respect of the Board resolution for his reappointment and remuneration, Section 184 and Section 188 apply ? 3. Will he compulsorily be treated as a KMP ? 4. Whether MR 1 in this case will be filed within 60 days from Board resolution or from General meeting resolution ( as the general meeting will now only be in September, 2015) ?
-
Reply
- Views (2617)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2090)
- Posted By: Ashok 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2084)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1725)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1700)
- Posted By: Ruchi mitra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (29281)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (20292)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (8197)
- Posted By: Sachin 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (6384)
- Posted By: Jasvir walia 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4573)
- Posted By: Vishwas panjiar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2845)
- Posted By: Ravi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2662)
- Posted By: Vikas gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2561)
- Posted By: Sanjeev 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2542)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2482)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2423)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2311)
- Posted By: Jagdish singh rathore 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2120)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2100)
- Posted By: Sunny bajaj 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1940)
- Posted By: Monika bhardwaj 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1789)
- Posted By: Nava bharat ventures limited 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1584)
- Posted By: Nilesh jain 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1442)
- Posted By: Gagandeep singh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (25940)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (14209)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4814)
- Posted By: Deepti vohra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3849)
- Posted By: Zaeem 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3322)
- Posted By: Shiv kumaran 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3303)
- Posted By: Srinivasaraghavan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3286)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3225)
- Posted By: Venkatesh babu t r 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3102)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3102)
- Posted By: Neha seth 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3021)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3000)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
The companies act states that preferential allotment shall also be treated as private placement and will have to comply with the r
Read More
The companies act states that preferential allotment shall also be treated as private placement and will have to comply with the requirements of private placements like issue of letter of offer, valuation by registered valuer etc. In case of preferential allotment of shares or other convertible securities to the promoters, should the company issue letter of offer and comply with the other requirements like valuation. With regard to the special resolution to be passed, can the company pass a single resolution with an upper limit so that the resolution can be used for all allotments to be made during the next 12 months. I understand that the special resolution should be acted upon within 12 months. Can a price band be fixed with power to the board to determine the price. In case of price band, how would the post issue shareholding pattern be made. Only when the exact price of share is known, can the number of shares to be alloted be determined. Please advice.
-
Reply
- Views (2945)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2900)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2622)
- Posted By: Aakanksha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2577)
- Posted By: Palani kumar b 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2538)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2456)
- Posted By: Ravi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2385)
- Posted By: Latha 9 year(s) ago
|
Please refer to the rules related to the appointment of an Independent Director i.e.Rule No. 4 of The Companies (Appointment and Q
Read More
Please refer to the rules related to the appointment of an Independent Director i.e.Rule No. 4 of The Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 the proviso provided that any intermittent vacancy of an ID shall be filled-up not later than immediate BM or 3 months from the date of such vacancy, whichever is later. Now if we got to Schedule IV ("Code for Independent Director") VI. Resignation and removal: Point 2. it has been provided that the ID vacancy shall be filled up within 180 days from the date of removal or such resignation. Please clarify within how many days the vacancy of ID should be filled-up
-
Reply
- Views (2263)
- Posted By: Pradeep chugh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2256)
- Posted By: Santosh pradhan 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2162)
- Posted By: Genicon 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2116)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2074)
- Posted By: Namita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2056)
- Posted By: Himanshu 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2056)
- Posted By: Rahul srivastava 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2051)
- Posted By: Kamlesh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2037)
- Posted By: Varun 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2015)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1985)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
Company “A” Limited has appointed as an additional director to fulfill the requirement of number of Independent Directors as requi
Read More
Company “A” Limited has appointed as an additional director to fulfill the requirement of number of Independent Directors as required under the Companies Act, 2013 and listing agreement with Stock Exchanges. The appointment of said additional director would be approved as an Independent Director in the next Annual General Meeting of the Company as required under section 150(2) of the Companies Act, 2013. In this connection the following queries are to be considered :- i) What will be the category of additional director for the intervening period i.e. from the date of appointment as an additional director till the next Annual General Meeting whether he will be independent or professional; ii) Whether the Board has power to appoint independent director and accordingly whether we can categorize such additional director as independent director in the Form DIR12 to be filed on appointment of directors; iii) If such additional director is to be treated as an independent director from the date of which he was appointed as an additional director then whether the intervening period from the date of appointment as an additional director till the next general meeting of the Company would be counted for the purpose of two terms of upto five consecutive years each as mentioned in Section 149(10) of the Companies Act, 2013.
-
Reply
- Views (1943)
- Posted By: Amish 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1936)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1877)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1823)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1785)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1762)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1743)
- Posted By: Ravinder 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1737)
- Posted By: Kamlsh tripathi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1730)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1724)
- Posted By: Pranay patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1699)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
Sir, A Private Company had passed a Board Resolution in 2011 (at the time of incorporation) to borrow upto Rs. 10.00 lakhs, when
Read More
Sir, A Private Company had passed a Board Resolution in 2011 (at the time of incorporation) to borrow upto Rs. 10.00 lakhs, when its paid up capital was Rs. 4.5 lakhs. The Board then increased its borrowing powers in August 2013 (while approving financial statements) to Rs. 2.00 crores as it thought of acquiring land for slightly re-aligning its objects (original objects were mining activity, for which applications were filed but approvals had not come, & so the Company decided to get into sand mining activity, by inserting those activities in the Main Object). Though the resolution was passed in Aug 2013 BM, the actual lending from the directors happened only in late September 2013, when the Sec. 185 has already got notified. Whether in this case, we can rely upon the old resolution of Aug 2013 passed by the Board would hold good OR we need to comply with new provisions?
-
Reply
- Views (1672)
- Posted By: Padmavathi k 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1619)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1615)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1594)
- Posted By: T.r.chadha & co. 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1562)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1554)
- Posted By: M b s agarwal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1554)
- Posted By: Nidhi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1545)
- Posted By: Anshul mittal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1534)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1506)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1486)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1458)
- Posted By: Vijay shankar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1444)
- Posted By: Alok srivastava 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1423)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1359)
- Posted By: Kaushik shah 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1232)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1150)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1011)
- Posted By: M s ramachandran 8 year(s) ago
|
Sec 179(3) of CA 2013 states that the board shall excersice borrowing powers only through board meetings. The resolution passed b
Read More
Sec 179(3) of CA 2013 states that the board shall excersice borrowing powers only through board meetings. The resolution passed by the Board has to be filed in MGT 14 within 30 days. Sec 180 states that company cannot borrow other than temporary loans exceeding total of pd up capital and free reserves except with the shareholders approval by way of spl resolution. Should the existing companies having borrowings and the borrowings exceeding total of pd up capital and free reserves as at 31st March 2014 pass the Board resolution and shareholders resolution even if they have not borrowed additionally in the FY 1415 ie after the commencement of provisions of CA 2013?.
-
Reply
- Views (29006)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (12978)
- Posted By: Rohit 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (10806)
- Posted By: Genicon 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (9038)
- Posted By: Brajesh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (7224)
- Posted By: Surekha garg 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (6890)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (6217)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (6215)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (6170)
- Posted By: Rajeesh kumar c 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (6010)
- Posted By: Pritesh gangwal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5339)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5277)
- Posted By: Comsec 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4957)
- Posted By: Govind 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4949)
- Posted By: Rakesh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4849)
- Posted By: Charu khatri 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4632)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4125)
- Posted By: Sushil kumar antal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4111)
- Posted By: Pradeep chugh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3943)
- Posted By: Mukund govindharajan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3837)
- Posted By: Vijay jani 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3587)
- Posted By: Pramod prabhudesai 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3387)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3222)
- Posted By: Jeeravla&co 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3077)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3073)
- Posted By: Kishore chawla 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2928)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2894)
- Posted By: Rishi harlalka 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2815)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2775)
- Posted By: Radhika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2755)
- Posted By: Hitender tanwar 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2664)
- Posted By: Jitesh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2634)
- Posted By: Mayank 10 year(s) ago
|
Rules 15(3) (ii) (a) of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014, specify threshold limit for related party tr
Read More
Rules 15(3) (ii) (a) of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014, specify threshold limit for related party transactions namely: - Sale, purchase or supply of any good or materials, Selling or otherwise disposing of or buying, property of any kind, Leasing of property of any kind etc. - Limit is 10% of Turnover or Rs. 100 Crores whichever is lower. My questions Is this limit apply for the transactions with individual related party or all related parties together? Suppose the company proposes to entered into related party transactions with Three Parties A,B, C and Individual amount of transactions P.A. with A- is Rs. 2 Crores, B- is Rs. 5 Crores and C- is Rs. 10 Crores. If we consider threshold limit per related party then in this case, only C is cover under the threshold limit prescribed under the rule, then should company require to obtain approval of shareholders for related party transactions with “C” only and for A and B Board approval is suffice ?
-
Reply
- Views (2599)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2589)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2569)
- Posted By: Anjali 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2556)
- Posted By: Raghu k 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2538)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2496)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2484)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
Hi Everyone,
Kindly address my query.
Our Company "Z india limited" is a Indian Public unlisted company having subsidiaries in
Read More
Hi Everyone,
Kindly address my query.
Our Company "Z india limited" is a Indian Public unlisted company having subsidiaries in Indian as well as abroad.
The foreign subsidiary i.e. "F Singapore Limited" has further subsidiaries "A india ltd" and "B india limited".
Q1. Kindly let me know if foreign company is also required to consolidate the accounts of its subsidiaries.
Secondly, the indian subsidiary of Z limited also have further subsidiaries. Kindly let me know the following
Q2. standalone accounts of subsidiaries would be combined with holding Company or consolidated accounts would be combined.
Kindly help
-
Reply
- Views (2475)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2465)
- Posted By: Balachandran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2465)
- Posted By: Akhand 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2449)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2441)
- Posted By: Sreenivasa rao 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2423)
- Posted By: Vishwaradhya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2408)
- Posted By: Akjain 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2390)
- Posted By: Ashok 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2356)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2340)
- Posted By: Anil 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2322)
- Posted By: T.r.chadha & co. 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2293)
- Posted By: Satish kshirsagar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2287)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2282)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2268)
- Posted By: R balasubramanian 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2267)
- Posted By: Damini chopra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2255)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2253)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2251)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2249)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2244)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2212)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2208)
- Posted By: Ashutosh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2118)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2112)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2110)
- Posted By: Rakesh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2095)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2070)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2063)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2046)
- Posted By: Himanshu 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2018)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2009)
- Posted By: Vinay tripathi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1999)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1998)
- Posted By: Monali sharma 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1996)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1991)
- Posted By: Revati galgali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1990)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1986)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1976)
- Posted By: Vijay khera 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1974)
- Posted By: Suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1964)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1961)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1961)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1960)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1958)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1929)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1921)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1912)
- Posted By: U l basak & co. 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1909)
- Posted By: Nava bharat ventures limited 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1902)
- Posted By: Cs anuj solanki 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1894)
- Posted By: Suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1894)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1890)
- Posted By: Nandini 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1881)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1865)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
A group having all pvt limited companies which are not subject to the mandatory appointment of KMP wishes to appoint WTD/MD and pa
Read More
A group having all pvt limited companies which are not subject to the mandatory appointment of KMP wishes to appoint WTD/MD and pay remuneration to all the directors. Reading of Sec 2(94) and Sec 203(3) gives us the understanding that a WTD cannot be appointed as executive director in more than one company. This means he can neither be a WTD or MD in one other company. However a person designated as MD can be MD in one other company. Under these circumstances can all the persons on the Board of pvt limited companies be designated as MD so that it will provide scope for the appointment of such persons as MD in one another company? By appointing a person as WTD, the company will not have the option of appointing him as executive director in the other companies, necessitating the company to induct new members into the Board.
-
Reply
- Views (1843)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1834)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1832)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1832)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1817)
- Posted By: Surya mallampally 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1815)
- Posted By: Duttalahiri & co 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1815)
- Posted By: Rajat 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1813)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1804)
- Posted By: Milind 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1796)
- Posted By: Meenu 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1773)
- Posted By: Nitin 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1766)
- Posted By: Bandaru 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1765)
- Posted By: Anshul mittal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1762)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1750)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1732)
- Posted By: Manish sharma 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1732)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1718)
- Posted By: Ca.kousik ghosh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1708)
- Posted By: Ujwal accounts 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1706)
- Posted By: Ashish 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1705)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1697)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1693)
- Posted By: Rajesh lakhanpal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1682)
- Posted By: Manoher lal goyal 10 year(s) ago
|
Sec 184 of CA 2013 states that every director shall at the first Board meeting of the Board in every financial year or whenever th
Read More
Sec 184 of CA 2013 states that every director shall at the first Board meeting of the Board in every financial year or whenever there is any change in the disclosures already made, then at the first Board meeting held after such change disclose his concern or interest in any company or bodies corporate etc. Rule 9 of Companies (Meetings of Board and its powers) rules state that it is the duty of every director to cause it to be disclosed at the meeting held immediately after the date of notice. Does it imply that the director disclosing his interest in MBP 1 to the Board need not be physically present at the Board meeting? Is it enough that he ensures that the interest disclosure is considered by the Board in its meeting?
-
Reply
- Views (1676)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1672)
- Posted By: Deepak gulati 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1654)
- Posted By: Sunil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1642)
- Posted By: Suresh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1641)
- Posted By: Cs deepesh kumar nayak 11 year(s) ago
|
Dear Members,
I have a doubt with respect to financial year end of the company.
As per section 2(41) of companies act, 2013,
Read More
Dear Members,
I have a doubt with respect to financial year end of the company.
As per section 2(41) of companies act, 2013, financial year mean period ending on 31st March every year. And every company having a different financial year, shall within a period of 2 years (i.e., before 31st Mar, 2016) from the commencement of CA, 2013, align its financial year as per the provisions.
Accordingly, a company (having its FY ending as on 31st December) intends to change its FY ending as 31st March. Thus, its FY will start form 1st Jan, 2016 to 31st Mar, 2017 and thereafter, from 1st April to 31st March every year.
Whether a company can do so?
Since, though the decision is taken to change its FY end before 31st Mar, 2016, the FY will end on 31st Mar, 2017 (after 31st Mar, 2016). Please advice.
-
Reply
- Views (1636)
- Posted By: Girish sanghavi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1633)
- Posted By: Sachin 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1604)
- Posted By: Suman jain 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1598)
- Posted By: Atul 10 year(s) ago
|
"Our Company is a Public ltd. company with PSC >10crore, there are 5 directors in the company out of which one is Managing Directo
Read More
"Our Company is a Public ltd. company with PSC >10crore, there are 5 directors in the company out of which one is Managing Director appointed for a term of 5years w.e.f 1/02/2014 and 3 are whole time director appointed for a term of 3 years w.e.f 1/02/2014 and the one who is recently appointed is additional director(executive). All directors are drawing renumeration. The Company has not obtained the approval of shareholders for giving renumeration to Additional director. Now since additional director can't draw remuneration without shareholders approval therefore we want to appoint him as WTD. Can we appoint him as WTD since in that case all the directors will become executive and non-rotational and in that case who will retire by rotation in the next AGM, if yes what is the procedure for the appointment since we have already file form DIR-12 for his appointment as Additional Diirector (executive). The Articles are silent regarding remuneration to Additional director. Your views on this issue will be highly appreciated.
-
Reply
- Views (1596)
- Posted By: Shashank 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1596)
- Posted By: Kamlesh 11 year(s) ago
|
A Person wants to Transfer its shares in an unlisted public company, registered office of which is situated at Nagpur and both Tra
Read More
A Person wants to Transfer its shares in an unlisted public company, registered office of which is situated at Nagpur and both Transferor and Transferee blong toPanipat ,a city in Haryana and they will execute the Form SH-4 in Panipat only. Under which act Stamp Duty will be paid Maharashtra or Haryana??. If maharashtra how will they purchase Share Transfer Stamp as they both are based in haryana. and How will Market Price of shares be calculated, as stamp on share transfer is .25 % on Consideration Paid or Market Price of the Shares , whichever is higher?.
-
Reply
- Views (1592)
- Posted By: Mahak 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1586)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1583)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1574)
- Posted By: Khushboo 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1564)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1542)
- Posted By: Akila 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1533)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1532)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1515)
- Posted By: Rajesh chopra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1512)
- Posted By: Balachandran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1488)
- Posted By: Latha 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1473)
- Posted By: Suresh kothari 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1459)
- Posted By: Suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1440)
- Posted By: Neha mittal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1438)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1436)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
As per The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rule 2014 – deposit shall not include – “ any amount received and held pursuant to a
Read More
As per The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rule 2014 – deposit shall not include – “ any amount received and held pursuant to an offer made in accordance with the provisions of the Act towards subscription to any securities, including share application money…..” It is further clarified that if the amount is not allotted within 60 days of receipt and not refunded within 15 days of completion of 60 days, then the amount shall be treated as deposit. Now, if a company is having share application money as on 31/03/2014, i.e. amount received under earlier Act and not allotted within 60 days of receipt. Also, it could not be refunded with 15 days of completion of 60 days. I have query- whether this amount be treated as deposit or not, as the amount received as share application money under Companies Act 1956 not in the provision of this Act.
-
Reply
- Views (1436)
- Posted By: Sanjay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1421)
- Posted By: Ansari 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1416)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1411)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1392)
- Posted By: Anantha krishnan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1354)
- Posted By: Ravinder 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1344)
- Posted By: P k krishnamurthy 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1337)
- Posted By: Roshan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1333)
- Posted By: Pr.ramanathan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1303)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1302)
- Posted By: Suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1292)
- Posted By: Unnikrishnan n 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1291)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1287)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1258)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1252)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1237)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1184)
- Posted By: Raja ram bhoopathy 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1169)
- Posted By: Kushal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1157)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1149)
- Posted By: Anupma khanna 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1102)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1078)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1048)
- Posted By: Khushboo khatreja 9 year(s) ago
|
This is regarding associate and subsidiary companies. As per new act even the loan given to subsidiary companie by its holding com
Read More
This is regarding associate and subsidiary companies. As per new act even the loan given to subsidiary companie by its holding companies are not exempt except in case of 100% subsidiaries. If a company holds the entire share capital of its subsidiary except one share ehich is held by one of the holding as well as subsidiary company's Director(all the Directors are same in both the companies) will it be treated as 1005 subsidiary or the one share must be held as a nominee by complying with the beneficial interest requirement to make it a 1005 subsidiary
-
Reply
- Views (1031)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
As per section 93 of the Companies Act, 2013 the changes in aggregate shareholding of promoters and top ten shareholders categorie
Read More
As per section 93 of the Companies Act, 2013 the changes in aggregate shareholding of promoters and top ten shareholders categories exceeding 2% increase or decrease have to be filed within 15 days from the date of such change with ROC in Form MGT-10. However, the following queries have arisen while filing such details in Form No. MGT-10 :- i) When this form (MGT-10) is to be filed a) When there is change of 2% or more ± in aggregate total shareholding of promoters or top ten shareholders considering the total share capital of the Company OR b) When there is change of 2% or more ± in individual holding of promoters and top ten shareholders considering the total share capital of the Company. ii) The requirement at Sr. No.5 states “details of change in shareholding pattern”. It is not clear which details of change will appear. Whether the details of all those promoters/top ten shareholders where changes have occurred in aggregate (+) or (-) 2% or more should be mentioned. iii) The requirement at Sr. No.6 reads as “details of shareholding position of promoters and top ten shareholders”. It is not clear which details are to be provided. Since it contains the column of change of shareholding hence furnishing of same information as required under Sr.No.5 again under this heading does not make sense. Advice is sought about filling of details in Form MGT10 in respect of changes as contemplated under section 93 of the Companies Act, 2013.
-
Reply
- Views (23172)
- Posted By: Amish 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (20652)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (17620)
- Posted By: Ravi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (10858)
- Posted By: Ashok 11 year(s) ago
|
As per Section 129(3), a company has to consolidate the accounts of its subsidiaries (including Joint Ventures/Associate Companies
Read More
As per Section 129(3), a company has to consolidate the accounts of its subsidiaries (including Joint Ventures/Associate Companies) and report.
However while reading Rule 6 of Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014 along with GSR 723E dated 14th October, 2014 it seems that companies that do not have subsidiaries but only associate companies are exempt from the requirement of preparing Consolidated Financial Statement for the year ending 31st March, 2015.
Please clarify whether the understanding that:
1) Companies that do not have subsidiary but only associate company is exempt from preparing Consolidated Financial Statement?
2) Is attaching AOC 1 along with Financial Statements be sufficient?
is correct.
-
Reply
- Views (10331)
- Posted By: Shiv kumaran 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (9508)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (9097)
- Posted By: Vijay shankar 9 year(s) ago
|
The Companies Act 2013, provides for voting by electronic means by shareholders at general meeting - Section 108. Draft Rules 7.18
Read More
The Companies Act 2013, provides for voting by electronic means by shareholders at general meeting - Section 108. Draft Rules 7.18 1 specifies that listed companies and companies with more than 500 shareholders may provide for electronic voting for section 108. Under Companies Act 1956, the Circular 72/2011 dt 27.12.2011 under Green Initiative provides it is optional for companies to provide for share holders participation at general meetings through video conferencing. There is no such mention of participation of shareholders through video conferencing at general meetings in the Companies Act 2013 and draft rules. Does that mean that the option of video conferencing facility for share holders participation in general meetings is dropped under Companies Act 2013.Hence can it be concluded that under Companies Act 2013 even as an option the company can no more provide video conferencing facility to share holders for participation in General Meetings. [by. G Mukund]
-
Reply
- Views (8525)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (8407)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (8155)
- Posted By: Robin 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (7894)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (7798)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (7694)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5857)
- Posted By: Hemal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5828)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 10 year(s) ago
|
The appointment of statutory auditors require filing of Form ADT1 within 15 days of the AGM. The act permits appointment of statut
Read More
The appointment of statutory auditors require filing of Form ADT1 within 15 days of the AGM. The act permits appointment of statutory auditor for more than a year with ratification by shareholders at every AGM. Form ADT1 does not have field relating to the period for which the stat.auditor is appointed. However Form GNL2 to which ADT1 is to be attached has to be filled with financial year to which it applies. Should we state just one year that is the 1st yr or the entire tenure say 3 yrs or 5 yrs as the case may be in GNL2?. Should the ratification be followed by filing of ADT1 within 15 days every year for the whole tenure? Though a similar query is recently raised, I would like to have specific reply. Hence the query.
-
Reply
- Views (5492)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5431)
- Posted By: Hitender tanwar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5310)
- Posted By: Chirag shah 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5282)
- Posted By: Sreenivas babu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5139)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4997)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4894)
- Posted By: Shiv kumaran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4746)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4620)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4498)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4339)
- Posted By: Mihir panchmatya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4306)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4069)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4032)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3989)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3986)
- Posted By: Comsec 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3980)
- Posted By: Ravinder 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3936)
- Posted By: Neeraj 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3793)
- Posted By: Himanshu 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3772)
- Posted By: Fairanddeal2008 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3771)
- Posted By: Sanjay dewan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3666)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3648)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3529)
- Posted By: Manoj dhariwal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3522)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3514)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3466)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3381)
- Posted By: Mohit kumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3378)
- Posted By: Shiv kumaran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3376)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3332)
- Posted By: Nilesh patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3326)
- Posted By: Palani kumar b 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3317)
- Posted By: Ananya gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3303)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3299)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3275)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3245)
- Posted By: Pranay patel 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3222)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3221)
- Posted By: Mradul gaur 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3186)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3140)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3126)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
Internal Auditor -As per section 138 of the Companies Act, 2013 such class of companies are required to appoint internal auditor
Read More
Internal Auditor -As per section 138 of the Companies Act, 2013 such class of companies are required to appoint internal auditor who shall either be a chartered accountant (CA) or a cost accountant (CMA) or such other professional as may be decided by the board to conduct internal audit. As per rule 13 Explanation the internal auditor may or may not be an employee of the company. Please clarify following – 1) such other professional as may be decided by the board means an employee of the company M.com or LLB qualified may be the internal auditor. 2) An employee of the company CA Inter OR CMA Inter OR CS Inter may be the internal auditor. 3) An employee of the company CA, CMA or CS may be the internal auditor.
-
Reply
- Views (3107)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
In new Form ADT-1, point no.(f) asks for the period of accounts for which appointed. In small companies where rotation is not appl
Read More
In new Form ADT-1, point no.(f) asks for the period of accounts for which appointed. In small companies where rotation is not applicable, we hv appointed auditors for five years.Now my query is -what should be entered in this column 01.04.2014-31.03.2015 or01.04.14 to 31.03.2019. The auditor is going to audit accounts of finacial year 14-15 only with this appointment for coming years ratification is needed as per law, but in resolution we r appointing them for five years.Further in next point g no of finacial year hv been asked for which the appointment is related but i think this column is meant for 139(2) companies only as it asks to fill point no.i before filling this point g.If smbody has filed the form pl. clarify
-
Reply
- Views (3101)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3080)
- Posted By: Shiv kumaran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3056)
- Posted By: Megha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3047)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3036)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3034)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3026)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3024)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3024)
- Posted By: K. madhusudhan reddy 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3006)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
One unlisted Public Limited Company, the company has passed special resolution u/s. 42 and 62 offer of Companies Act, 2013 on 25th
Read More
One unlisted Public Limited Company, the company has passed special resolution u/s. 42 and 62 offer of Companies Act, 2013 on 25th June, 2014 authorizing the Board of Directors to create, offer, issue and allot 30,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/- each for cash at par in one o more tranches from time to time. The company has given list of 85 proposed allotters with their % post paid up capital in explanatory statement in terms of rule 13 of the Companies (Share Capital and Debentures) Rules, 2014. Subsequently Board of Directors of the Company approved Private Placement offer Letter in Form PAS-4 on 27/06/2014 and record private placement offer in Form PAS-5 and send offer to 45 persons alongwith Private Placement offer letter in Form PAS-4 to those persons on 27/06/2014. The company has received application money and allotted shares to those 45 persons. Subsequently the company has record private placement offer in Form PAS-5 and send offer to 30 persons alongwith Private Placement offer letter in Form PAS-4 to those persons on 23/07/2014. Please let me know what date of circulation of private placement offer letter in both Form PAS-5 i.e. For 1st Offer- date of circulation of private placement offer letter : 27/06/2014 For 2nd Offer- date of circulation of private placement offer letter : 23/07/2014 Also explain me that date of circulation of private placement offer letter is the date of approval of Private Placement offer letter or date on which private placement offer letter send to proposed allottees b/c Private Placement offer letter is approved by Board one time for entire offer and issue of Shares i.e. offer, issue and allot 30,00,000 equity shares of Rs. 10/-
-
Reply
- Views (2990)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2984)
- Posted By: Piyush 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2977)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2977)
- Posted By: Pr.ramanathan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2946)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2934)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2933)
- Posted By: P banerjee 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2931)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2926)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2923)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2900)
- Posted By: Nitesh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2882)
- Posted By: Nalin jain 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2876)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2829)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2829)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2822)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
Regarding appointment of Independent Director under section 149 (4) of Co. Act 2013 read with Rules 4 of The Companies (Appointme
Read More
Regarding appointment of Independent Director under section 149 (4) of Co. Act 2013 read with Rules 4 of The Companies (Appointment & Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014 provides that the following class or classes of companies shall have latest two Directors as independent Directors on the Board of Directors of the Company (iii) a public company which have, in aggregate of, outstanding Loans, debentures and deposits, exceeding fifty crores rupees In this regard please clarify the following : 01. What is meaning of “Outstanding loans” i.e. both short term and long term loans both or Else ? 02. For the purpose of this rules it is stated that, the paid up share capital or turnover or outstanding loans, debentures and deposits, as the case may be as existing on the last date of latest audited financial statements shall be taken into account then : Please clarify which date i. e. date of balance-sheet as on 31st March or date of signing of Balance-sheet of that year ?
-
Reply
- Views (2814)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2793)
- Posted By: Amit nowlakha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2792)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2758)
- Posted By: Ishu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2752)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2720)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2719)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2718)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2699)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
If company propose to issue shares of private placement /preferential basis then that case company need to comply with provisions
Read More
If company propose to issue shares of private placement /preferential basis then that case company need to comply with provisions the provisions of both section 42 and 62 of companies act, 2013, in that case : 1) is it compulsory to issue shares at premium ? 2) is it compulsory to obtain valuation certificate if company is existing company want to issue shares at par ? 3) In case of new company, can company issue shares at par and in that case valuation certificate is compulsory ? 4) In new company suppose valuation certificate obtained ant value comes Rs. 8/- per share than it is compulsory for the company to issue shares at discount ?
-
Reply
- Views (2697)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2686)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
As per section 89 the company has to file Form MGT-6 with ROC witin 30 days of receipt of declaration from the beneficial owner an
Read More
As per section 89 the company has to file Form MGT-6 with ROC witin 30 days of receipt of declaration from the beneficial owner and the member whose name has been entered in the register of members but who is just a nominee for the share. As now as per new acts exemption are available in case of 100% subsidiaries only we hv to transfer the 100% shareholding to the holding company's name but for keeping the minimum two members one share has to be given to smbody as nominee of the holding company. In that case are we required to file MGT 6 as the beneficial owner is the holding company and not the person who is shown as a member or it is not necessary as the entry in the register of member and on share certificate shows him as nominee of the holding company.Further if it is to be filed whether both the forms MGT 4 & 5 are to be attached with MGT 6 means holding company as well as the nomine both hv to file the declaration with the company.
-
Reply
- Views (2682)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2664)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2663)
- Posted By: Ravi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2655)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2649)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2647)
- Posted By: V. subramanian 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2634)
- Posted By: Revati galgali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2634)
- Posted By: Naresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2632)
- Posted By: Amarnath jha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2630)
- Posted By: Aarti rathod 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2629)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2625)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2623)
- Posted By: Z khan 11 year(s) ago
|
The directors of an unlisted public limited company and a closely held private limited company disclosed their interest in Form 24
Read More
The directors of an unlisted public limited company and a closely held private limited company disclosed their interest in Form 24AA in March, 2014. However the First board meetings of both the companies for the F.Y. 2014-15 were held on 12.04.2014 and 15.04.2014 respectively but they didnot disclose their interest in Form MBP-1 because they were not aware of the Form and provisions. They have submitted their disclosures in MBP-1 in the last week of June, 2014. whether taking note of the disclosure at the Board Meeting held on 30.06.2014 and filing the resolution with ROC in MGT-14 alongwith the reason for doing so suffice the compliance of the section?
-
Reply
- Views (2621)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2614)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2591)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2580)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2579)
- Posted By: Ca bhagyashree sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2577)
- Posted By: Rajapanduranga 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2573)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2571)
- Posted By: Animesh sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2569)
- Posted By: Meenakshi sharma 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2565)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2559)
- Posted By: Rajesh chopra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2551)
- Posted By: Suresh k s 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2549)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2543)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2533)
- Posted By: Akila 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2532)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
THis is in connection with issue and allotment of shares to a foreign parent co under new Act. FEMA requires shares to be issued a
Read More
THis is in connection with issue and allotment of shares to a foreign parent co under new Act. FEMA requires shares to be issued at fair value certified by auditors. Also, Section 62 of the new Act requires that issue of shares should be at value determined by the registered valuer. In one case, the value of share is around Rs. 1.2 whereas the face value is Rs. 10. Section 53 of the Act prohibits issue of shares at discount. We are confused. If the issue is in accordance with Section 62, i e at Rs. 1.2, there will be a violation of section 53. Is there any conceptual misunderstanding By Hina Sadrani, Self Employed
-
Reply
- Views (2522)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2509)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2509)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2502)
- Posted By: Ram 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2502)
- Posted By: Anjali 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2492)
- Posted By: Dhawal kant singh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2489)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2488)
- Posted By: Pooja hiranandani 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2475)
- Posted By: Pradeep panda 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2461)
- Posted By: Nitin 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2460)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2455)
- Posted By: Ujwal accounts 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2454)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2453)
- Posted By: Mukund govindharajan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2444)
- Posted By: Neha mittal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2434)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
The Companies which fall within the purview of Rule 5 of Companies (Audit & Auditors) Rules, 2014 and Section 139(2) of Companies
Read More
The Companies which fall within the purview of Rule 5 of Companies (Audit & Auditors) Rules, 2014 and Section 139(2) of Companies Act 2013 have been given a time transition of 3 years to comply with the provisions of rotation of auditors. Meaning that they need to appoint a new auditor in case the existing auditor has already exceeded the term permitted in the said Section. My query is: What about companies to whom the section is not applicable on 1.4.14 but by virtue of fresh borrowings beyond the limit given in Rule 5, the section becomes applicable to them? Do they also get a time transition of 3 years? Or do they need to make fresh appointment in this year itself.
-
Reply
- Views (2427)
- Posted By: Stuti 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2426)
- Posted By: Anjali 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2421)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
1. In Form DPT-1 being Circular or circular in form of advertisement for inviting deposit, in sub-para No. d in para 4. i.e. Finan
Read More
1. In Form DPT-1 being Circular or circular in form of advertisement for inviting deposit, in sub-para No. d in para 4. i.e. Financial Position of the company it is stated that Audited Cash Flow statement for the last three years immediately preceding the date of issue of circular or advertisement. My questions is in some of Company auditors has not prepared audited cash flow statement for those last three years or any of one year out of those last three years as it was not applicable to the company including private company as per Accounting standard, so let me know it is compulsory to provide audited cash flow statement for last three years in form DPT-1 even though it was not applicable in those last three years ?
-
Reply
- Views (2417)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2413)
- Posted By: Pooja hiranandani 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2406)
- Posted By: Rajesh chopra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2404)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2400)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2398)
- Posted By: V.b. mahajan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2395)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2392)
- Posted By: Govind 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2372)
- Posted By: Brajesh r. agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2367)
- Posted By: Vaibhav shah 10 year(s) ago
|
One company has pass special resolution u/s. 42 read with 62 with relevant rules under provisions of Co. Act, 2013 for offer, issu
Read More
One company has pass special resolution u/s. 42 read with 62 with relevant rules under provisions of Co. Act, 2013 for offer, issue of and allotment of Shares of Rs. 5 Crores to 120 persons in one or more tranches and as per the provisions of act and rules the validity of resolution is 12 months from the date of passing of resolution. The Board of Directors have approved Letter of offer in Form PAS4 and send the same first to 42 persons out of 120 persons ? We want following clarifications : 01. What is validity of Private Placement offer Letter in Form PAS4. ? 30 days or 12 months. 02. The company send offer letter to first 42 persons and made allotment and then we want to send offer letter to another 45 person out of 120 person, should the company need to prepare and approved offer letter in Form PAS -4 again and again until the completion of allotment for the total shares for which special resolution passed ? 03. Whether company need to maintain record in Form PAS 5 again and again when the company send Offer to total 120 persons until completion of allotment of total shares under special resolution passed ?
-
Reply
- Views (2351)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2343)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2342)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2341)
- Posted By: A k jain 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2334)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2331)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2329)
- Posted By: Joy kumar jain 10 year(s) ago
|
Payment of Managerial Remuneration A Unlisted Public Limited Company having no profit or inadequate profit want to appoint/re-ap
Read More
Payment of Managerial Remuneration A Unlisted Public Limited Company having no profit or inadequate profit want to appoint/re-appoint managing Director/WD and proposes to pay or revise remuneration which is less than Slab mentioned in Part (a) of section II of schedule V of companies Act, 2013. For Example (i) Effective capital is Negative or Less than 5 Crores and Limit under this slab is Rs. 30 Laks P.A.- In this case company propose to pay or revise remuneration of Rs. 25 Lacs P.A., So company need to pass ordinary Resolution. Please clearly that in this case is it compulsory for the company to approve the remuneration by Nomination and Remuneration committee ?
-
Reply
- Views (2327)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
In continuation on my query on appointment of auditors ok we hv to appoint the auditorss for a term of five years starting this yr
Read More
In continuation on my query on appointment of auditors ok we hv to appoint the auditorss for a term of five years starting this yr only in case of non prescribed companies and file ADT-1. But the form ADT-1 is not available for e filing we hv to attach it in GNL-2, Right? Further in ADT-1 there is mention of the period for which appointment is being made and no attachment has been prescribed. Is it not necessary to attach any letter given to auditors or intimation reced from auditors with the form? And if we file ADT-i every year which period we will specify the appointment is for--one financial year or the the remaining 4,3 or 2 financial years?
-
Reply
- Views (2325)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2317)
- Posted By: Vinu thomas 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2315)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2310)
- Posted By: Aakanksha 10 year(s) ago
|
Sir
In Form DPT-1 the company has to furnish detail about financial position of the company including Audited Cash Flow Statement
Read More
Sir
In Form DPT-1 the company has to furnish detail about financial position of the company including Audited Cash Flow Statement for the three years immediately preceding the date of issue of circular or advertisement. My question is that in private limited and unlisted public limited company, auditors has not prepared audited cash Flow statement for last three years as it was not applicable at that time. Then is it mandatory for those companies to furnish the audited cash Flow statement for the three years immediately preceding the date of issue of circular or advertisement in form DPT-1 ?
-
Reply
- Views (2307)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2306)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2303)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2299)
- Posted By: Alok 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2298)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2294)
- Posted By: Ramesh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2294)
- Posted By: Jitendra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2294)
- Posted By: Kishor 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2283)
- Posted By: Lakshminarayana n 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2279)
- Posted By: Nilay shah 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2271)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2271)
- Posted By: Hardam singh 10 year(s) ago
|
We have initiated the procedure for Incorporation of a company under Chapter XXI for Conversion (i.e. Vesting of Interest) of a Co
Read More
We have initiated the procedure for Incorporation of a company under Chapter XXI for Conversion (i.e. Vesting of Interest) of a Co operative Society into a limited Company. After filling INC-1, MCA clarified that Since the Rules are not clear in this context u/s 366 Part-1 of Chapter XXI of Companies Act,2013.The proposed name is not allowed, till further clarification in this matter.
Further we revived guidance from MCA to convert the Co operative Society into LLP and then Convert the LLP into a Limited Company.
So please guide us in this regard and kindly explain the procedure.
-
Reply
- Views (2265)
- Posted By: Kedar 10 year(s) ago
|
A Company is required to spend say Rs.10 on CSR in the FY 2014-15. The amount of Rs.10 is based on 2 of average PBT of the FY 2011
Read More
A Company is required to spend say Rs.10 on CSR in the FY 2014-15. The amount of Rs.10 is based on 2 of average PBT of the FY 2011:12, 2012:13 and 2013:14. In the FY 2014:15, the Company actually spent Rs.5 on the CSR projects identified by it and Rs.3 will be spent on the same projects in the next FY, leaving Rs.2 not to be spent by it. The Board also gives reasons for not spending Rs.2 to its shareholders. With this background, my Question is –How Companies will record the amount under CSR Pool, as it is not in the nature of “Reserve”, which can be brought back to Profit. In the given case, where the amount i.e. Rs.2 not spent will go. As per the Draft CSR Rules, surplus arising out of the CSR activity will not be part of business profits of the company. | By. DS Mahajan
-
Reply
- Views (2261)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2259)
- Posted By: Ranjal laxmana shenoy 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2258)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2248)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2245)
- Posted By: Suniti 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2245)
- Posted By: Prerna 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2245)
- Posted By: Pradeep chugh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2240)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2239)
- Posted By: Sreenivas babu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2232)
- Posted By: Comsec 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2230)
- Posted By: Dipti shah 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2228)
- Posted By: Kejal shah 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2226)
- Posted By: Pawan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2225)
- Posted By: Prakash khedekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2225)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
A company had appointed a managing director in 2011 under the provisions of the Companies act, 1956. He is a professional and he
Read More
A company had appointed a managing director in 2011 under the provisions of the Companies act, 1956. He is a professional and hence as per notification dated 14th july, 2011 he can be paid remuneration without any limits in case of inadequate profits.
The question is whether the limits under Schedule V of the new Companies act, 2013 would be applicable while determining the remuneration payable to Professional managing director for the year 2014-15.
Since the appointment was made prior to 1st april, 2014, the limits under schedule V should not be applicable.
views are solicited from professional colleagues
-
Reply
- Views (2222)
- Posted By: Comsec 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2220)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2218)
- Posted By: Nandini 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2214)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2207)
- Posted By: Vinay b l 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2204)
- Posted By: Amruta tendulkar 10 year(s) ago
|
As per Rule 14(3) of PAS Rules, if the company is listed it shall file Letter of offce with SEBI within 30 days of circulation.
Read More
As per Rule 14(3) of PAS Rules, if the company is listed it shall file Letter of offce with SEBI within 30 days of circulation.
Listed company as defined under the new Act means "a Company whose securities are listed on any recognised stock exchange. However, as per SEBI ICDR, listed company includes compnaies whose equity shares are listed of recognised stock exchange.
So, if only NCDs of XYZ Limited are listed they will be classified as listed company for the purpose of new act of 2013 and will be required to comply with all provisions applicable to listed company.
Now, my query is if XYZ Ltd. issues equity shares on preferential basis, whehter it will be required to flie PAS 5 & PAS4 with SEBI?.
-
Reply
- Views (2192)
- Posted By: Nilesh patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2192)
- Posted By: Chandr sekhar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2192)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2189)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2189)
- Posted By: Shairill a. dubey 11 year(s) ago
|
If a person appointed u/s 196 and not u/s 203 reason being, KMP is not applicable and Co. is a public Ltd. Co and remuneration pai
Read More
If a person appointed u/s 196 and not u/s 203 reason being, KMP is not applicable and Co. is a public Ltd. Co and remuneration paid to the WTD (Non-KMP) is within limit as per Schedule V and Ordinary Resolution is passed. then MR-1 is required to be filed but for this, SRN of MGT-14 is required. Please let me know under which section MGT-14 is to be filed because Section 117 is not applicable as matter is OR and not covered under section 179 and rules made thereunder.
Hope you will reply as early as possible because no professional advised me in this regard.
-
Reply
- Views (2187)
- Posted By: Amod kumar jha 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2185)
- Posted By: Aakanksha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2183)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2180)
- Posted By: Sumanta kumar dasgupta 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2170)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2168)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2168)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2165)
- Posted By: Viral sanghavi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2164)
- Posted By: Ravinder 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2160)
- Posted By: Ashwani rustagi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2150)
- Posted By: Suniti 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2148)
- Posted By: Sandeep 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2146)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2145)
- Posted By: Ajith 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2142)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2140)
- Posted By: Garima 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2140)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2135)
- Posted By: Chandra 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2133)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2131)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2129)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2129)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2129)
- Posted By: Shweta agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2125)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2122)
- Posted By: Cs ram thakkar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2121)
- Posted By: Ravi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2116)
- Posted By: Pritesh gangwal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2115)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2115)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2114)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2108)
- Posted By: Deepak 11 year(s) ago
|
This is a case of a company to which Sec 139(2) of CA 2013 is not applicable. The present audit firm of the company is appointed f
Read More
This is a case of a company to which Sec 139(2) of CA 2013 is not applicable. The present audit firm of the company is appointed for stat.audit since inception of the company (18 yrs). So the rotaion of auditors/firm under rule 6 is also not applicable. The tenure of the prev yrs held by the audit firm is 18 yrs though there could be 2 members of the same firm who have signed the auditor accounts over the past yrs. Form ADT 1 permits entry of only 10 yrs under pt no 4(i). Is there necessity to attach optional attachment for remaining 8 yrs?. Is the intent of law is only to seek the details of 10 yrs in case of audit firm as illustrated in rule 6 of the relevant rules?
-
Reply
- Views (2106)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2105)
- Posted By: Mukund govindharajan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2105)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2104)
- Posted By: Sandeep 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2101)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2098)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2098)
- Posted By: Mitesh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2095)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2093)
- Posted By: Ghanshyam saraf 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2087)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2087)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2086)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2077)
- Posted By: Mitesh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2074)
- Posted By: Ujjwal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2073)
- Posted By: Deepti vohra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2068)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2066)
- Posted By: Vikas gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2065)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2050)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2044)
- Posted By: Meenakshi sharma 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2040)
- Posted By: Chirag shah 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2037)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2037)
- Posted By: Ravinder 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2036)
- Posted By: Ranjal laxmana shenoy 10 year(s) ago
|
Hi Deepali, this is regarding yr answer given to my query on compounding application, u said we can file the same under CLSS But e
Read More
Hi Deepali, this is regarding yr answer given to my query on compounding application, u said we can file the same under CLSS But even the CLSS does not allow refiling of Form 23AC and ACA. We hv already filed these form in that particular year.The main problem is not fee but is that these two forms cannot be filed again. We evn filed these again in Form-61 but ROC has not accepted the same as default made good.I really dont understand these ridiculous situations you dont allow refiling but u will accept the application only when the forms will be refiled.what should we do. Just because of this the compounding application is pending at roc itself for the last 6 monts. Really dont know what to do?
-
Reply
- Views (2034)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2033)
- Posted By: Aakanksha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2032)
- Posted By: Megha agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2031)
- Posted By: Rajesh chopra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2027)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2026)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2019)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2018)
- Posted By: Vishwas panjiar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2016)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2014)
- Posted By: Raj kumar gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2009)
- Posted By: Nirupama v 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2005)
- Posted By: Kamlesh g pandya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2004)
- Posted By: Dhananjay 10 year(s) ago
|
Dear Sir/ Madam, Ref: Section 186 and Explanation to Rule no 13 (1) of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 20
Read More
Dear Sir/ Madam, Ref: Section 186 and Explanation to Rule no 13 (1) of the Companies (Meetings of Board and its Powers) Rules, 2014) According to me, we can investment, give loan etc ....exceeding limits ...........but we have to pass special resolution with in 1 year from the notification of these rules. It means if limits are 10 Cr .....my current borrowing is 12 cr.....I can further borrow to say 20 cr ( with out passing special resolution immediately).... but have to take approval for the same by 31.03.2015. Kindly provided your inputs. Thanks, Mandar
-
Reply
- Views (2003)
- Posted By: Mandar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2003)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2002)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2002)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1998)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
Could you please clarify the following on the appointment of auditors please. We are private limited company having a paid up capi
Read More
Could you please clarify the following on the appointment of auditors please. We are private limited company having a paid up capital of less than 20 crores. The existing auditors have completed 3years. We need to re-appoint in the AGM for next term. The present act requires appointment at the Board +AGM for 5 years. The clarification are as follows: a) Is it mandatory we have to appoint auditors for next 5years. b) If so whether we have to appoint for next two consequent years since they have already completed 3 years or for complete term of next 5 years. c) Will it be in compliance if we appoint for every 1 year as per the erstwhile act of 1956. d) Is it possible to leverage of sec 139(2) wherein three years have given for compliance as it states appointment includes re-appointment? We look forward to your valuable inputs on the above.
-
Reply
- Views (1998)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1996)
- Posted By: Pradeep arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1994)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1993)
- Posted By: Nilesh patel 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1992)
- Posted By: Ravi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1991)
- Posted By: Vimal chhabra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1989)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1989)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1988)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1986)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1984)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1978)
- Posted By: S ganesan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1977)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1977)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1972)
- Posted By: Amruta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1970)
- Posted By: S.m.a.millath 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1968)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1968)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1968)
- Posted By: Jitendra lekhwani 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1966)
- Posted By: Sushil kumar goyal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1961)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1959)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1959)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1954)
- Posted By: Deep 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1950)
- Posted By: Nishit 9 year(s) ago
|
Dear Sir/Madam,
My query is as follow:
One of my Company have issued Non-convertible Debentures in year 2014 for the term of
Read More
Dear Sir/Madam,
My query is as follow:
One of my Company have issued Non-convertible Debentures in year 2014 for the term of 5 years. Now they wish to convert those debentures into equity, but as the debentures are non-convertible debentures can they be 1st converted into optionally convertible debentures and thereafter to equity.
Is this possible do so? if yes, which of the provision under Companies Act, 2013 speak about the same. (Specially conversion related to non-convertible debentures to optionally convertible debentures)
Thanks in advance,
Nikita Bhandari
-
Reply
- Views (1943)
- Posted By: Nikita 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1943)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1940)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1939)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1936)
- Posted By: Sapna tomar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1934)
- Posted By: Sanjay solanki 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1934)
- Posted By: Secretarial monks 9 year(s) ago
|
1) One of our client is a private limited company ; Their shareholders are body incorporated outside India who holds close to 100%
Read More
1) One of our client is a private limited company ; Their shareholders are body incorporated outside India who holds close to 100%. The two directors are common in both and they do not hold any shares either in company incorporated in India and outside India. Could you pl clarify the following: a) whether body corporate who holds close to 100% falls under holding company b) whether related party is applicable u/s188 despite having common directors.
2) Further exemptions have been give under 196(4) (5) ; can we construe that sec 197 is not applicable to private limited company
-
Reply
- Views (1932)
- Posted By: Balachandran 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1925)
- Posted By: Naresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1924)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1923)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1922)
- Posted By: K gopalan 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1921)
- Posted By: Kr sampath 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1921)
- Posted By: N ramakrishna rao 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1920)
- Posted By: Charu khatri 10 year(s) ago
|
X Private Limited want to acquire 100% shares of Y Private Limited. Y Pvt Ltd. has three directors of which two are Foreign Nation
Read More
X Private Limited want to acquire 100% shares of Y Private Limited. Y Pvt Ltd. has three directors of which two are Foreign National and residing abroad. These two FN are shareholders. X Pvt Ltd will have new 2 additional directors.
After appointment of additional directors - position is as under IN - 3 Directors, FN - 2 Directors.
At the Board meeting to be held in India for transfer of shares of X to Y - can FN Directors participate in the meeting through video conferencing ?
Can the votes of FN Directors be treated as valid vote for transfer ?
Whether the subject of transfer of shares is to be treated as acquisition of company ?
And If it is to treated as Acquisition, whether the said business can be transacted through video conferencing method ?
Please reply.
CS ATUL KULKARNI
-
Reply
- Views (1919)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1918)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1917)
- Posted By: Sanjay sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1916)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1916)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1915)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
with reference to my earlier question Section 188 -- related party transactions are applicable after 01/04/2014, and as per your a
Read More
with reference to my earlier question Section 188 -- related party transactions are applicable after 01/04/2014, and as per your answer resolution should be passed after 01st Sep. 13 to 31st March 2014, but leasing of property of any kind was not included in the Companies act, 1956 and this section 188 implemented from 01/04/2014, now my questions
(1) When any shop owned by one of the Director was shown as Registered Office , but no rent was paid by the Company to the Director and not proper lease agreement was also executed , but NOC for using premises as Registered Office was filed at the time of incorporation-- whether it attracts provision of Section 188. ( if no rent was given by the Company to Director)
(2) what will be situation if rent was given to Director by the Company ( But no proper lease agreement as the company is using premises since incorporation and this transaction was not covered under old act ) --- whether to discontinue giving of rent or to pass resolution ( but under Old Companies act, 1956 or New Companies act, 2014 because only husband and wife are member and Director , no non-interest director was on the Board)
-
Reply
- Views (1914)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1914)
- Posted By: Murli lahoti 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1914)
- Posted By: Sumit dhawan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1911)
- Posted By: Dharmesh dixit 8 year(s) ago
|
Section 185 says: No company can give loan to directors/person interested in directors including loan by way of book debt. So if o
Read More
Section 185 says: No company can give loan to directors/person interested in directors including loan by way of book debt. So if one want to sell goods on credit to other private limited company (the directors and some shareholders are same) then is it possible under new Act ? Section 188: Related Party transaction is also related to same as it says : Company can enter in to any contract to sell goods or services to related prices with the Board Resolution (in some cases with special resolution) and this permission only to be taken when price is not arm length price. So section 188 permits company to sell goods (on cash/credit) to related party subject to Board/Special Resolution. Is this both section conflicting ? Kindly give views/replies on this.
-
Reply
- Views (1909)
- Posted By: Karan bhatt 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1909)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1908)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1907)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1905)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1901)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
Dear All,
Please advise
1) As per notifciation dated 5 june2015 , private company can take loan from its shareholder. Can
Read More
Dear All,
Please advise
1) As per notifciation dated 5 june2015 , private company can take loan from its shareholder. Can the approval for the same be taken in board meeting or in general meeting? 2) As per Notification no.G.S.R.464(E) dated 05/06/2015, clauses (a) to (e) of subsection
(2) of section 73 shall not apply to a Private Company which accepts from its Members monies not exceeding 100% of aggregate of the paid up share capital and free reserves. As per sub-rule 3 of Rule 3 of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, no Company referred to in sec 73(2) shall accept or renew any deposit from its Members, if the amount of such deposits together with the deposits outstanding as on date of acceptance of such deposits exceeds 25% of aggregate of paid-up share capital and free reserves of the company. So what is the maximum amount of Loan that can be accepted by a Pvt.Ltd.Company from its Members? Is it 25% or 100% of paid-up capital & free reserves?
3) what are the formalities to be complied? form no to be filed with roc etc?
4) if company is already enjoying loan from its director ,which is excluded from deposit ,will that amount will be considered while calculating above limit
Thanks
-
Reply
- Views (1898)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
As per Section 185 (1) Explanation to clause (c) i.e. for IFSC Private Limited /Public Limited Co, it states that "the expression
Read More
As per Section 185 (1) Explanation to clause (c) i.e. for IFSC Private Limited /Public Limited Co, it states that "the expression “to any other person in whom director is interested” means- (c) any private company of which any such director is a director or member in which director of the lending company do not have direct or indirect shareholding through themselves or through their relatives and a special resolution is passed to this effect;”. Now what is the exact impact of such amendment as introduced for IFSC Companies. Why a special resolution is required.
-
Reply
- Views (1895)
- Posted By: Amit popli 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1894)
- Posted By: Vijay khera 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1893)
- Posted By: Roshan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1893)
- Posted By: Ravi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1892)
- Posted By: P t joseph 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1892)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1892)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1891)
- Posted By: K gopalan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1888)
- Posted By: Mohit 12 year(s) ago
|
Even as per recent Circular No. 18/2013 dated 19-11-2013, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued a clarification with regard
Read More
Even as per recent Circular No. 18/2013 dated 19-11-2013, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued a clarification with regard to applicability of provision of Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956 on account of number of representations received consequent upon notifying Section 185 of the Companies Act, 2013 dealing with loans to directors which is corresponding to Section 295 of the Companies Act, 1956. It was candidly clarified in the said Circular that Section 372A of the Companies Act, 1956 dealing with inter-corporate loans continue to remain in force till Section 186, of the Companies Act, 2013 is notified.What is the position now as section 186 already notified?
-
Reply
- Views (1886)
- Posted By: Kamlesh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1884)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
The Financial Statements are prepared in Indian AS. Some portion of redeemable pref. shares are shown in other equity ( as equity
Read More
The Financial Statements are prepared in Indian AS. Some portion of redeemable pref. shares are shown in other equity ( as equity portion of compound financial instrument) and remaining portion in Long term Borrowings(as liability component of compound Financial Instrument). So the query is while preparing MGT-9 to calculate indebtedness whether we have to take the amount of redeemable pref shares shown in Long term borrowings in Secured loans? Even for that matter the amount of indebtedness in MGT-7? What will be the paid up capital of the Company? Only Equity Share Capital
-
Reply
- Views (1884)
- Posted By: Asheeba pereira 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1882)
- Posted By: Kaushik d nahar 11 year(s) ago
|
As per Sec 184 of CA 2013, every director has to make disclosure of his interest in various entities every year and the same has t
Read More
As per Sec 184 of CA 2013, every director has to make disclosure of his interest in various entities every year and the same has to be considered in the first Board meeting of the financial year. MGT-14 is to be filed with respect to the disclosure considered in the Board meeting within 30 days of the Board meeting. A person is a director/member in some companies with which there is likelyhood of the company entering into contracts. The director also holds shares in many listed companies as investment. He also trades in listed shares as an investor thereby resulting in frequent changes in the holdings. Should the director disclose the details of his membership in such listed companies as well every year and subsequent to every change during the year?
-
Reply
- Views (1881)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1880)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1878)
- Posted By: Mohit kumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1878)
- Posted By: Jainam shah 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1875)
- Posted By: Cs ram thakkar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1873)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1869)
- Posted By: Shrenik 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1868)
- Posted By: Sanjay 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1867)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1867)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1867)
- Posted By: Ashok kumar verma 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1867)
- Posted By: Shiv kumar agarwal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1865)
- Posted By: Unnikrishnan n 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1865)
- Posted By: Ekta trivedi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1863)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1863)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1863)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1856)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1855)
- Posted By: Revathy` 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1855)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1855)
- Posted By: Rohit kumar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1854)
- Posted By: Sridhar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1852)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1851)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1848)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1846)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1845)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) notified on June 5, 2015 that certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”)
Read More
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) notified on June 5, 2015 that certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) shall not apply to private limited companies The Notification provides that, in relation to a private company, the entities specified in Section 2(76)(viii) of the 2013 Act (i.e., the Group Companies) would not be considered related parties for the purposes of Section 188. Since the Notification does not exempt private companies from the applicability of Section 2(76)(iv) of the 2013 Act, if the directors or managers in one private company are directors or members in another private company, a transaction between the two such companies would be considered as a related party transaction despite the exemption granted from Section 2(76)(viii). Therefore, if the intent is to exempt private companies from related party transactions , then section 2(76)(iv) should be not be applicable to private companies.
-
Reply
- Views (1843)
- Posted By: Pooja sehgal mehtani 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1842)
- Posted By: Murli lahoti 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1842)
- Posted By: Ghanshyam saraf 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1838)
- Posted By: Rajesh chopra 11 year(s) ago
|
A private company having an authorised capital of Rs. 2 Crores wish to takeover the business of a partnership firm. In that firm b
Read More
A private company having an authorised capital of Rs. 2 Crores wish to takeover the business of a partnership firm. In that firm both the partners hv contributed 75 lacs each as their capital contribution. i.e Rs.1.50 Cr.The company proposes to issue equity shares to both the partners at par i.e issue of 1500000 shares of Rs.10/- each. As the company is not getting hard cash at the time of allotment,this shares will be issued for consideration other than cash. My query is about what option is to be selected for point no 4 (iv) of the form PAS 3, consideration received is (a)- assets and property acquired or (b)- Goodwill or (d)-Conversion of loan or (e) any other and write against capital contributed in firm.Further how this allotment will take place. Are we require to follow the whole private placement procedure.
-
Reply
- Views (1838)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1834)
- Posted By: Ranjan kumar sarangi 11 year(s) ago
|
We are an unlisted Public Company comprising 8 person on Board of Directors. Out of 8 directors, 4 are Independent Directors (inc
Read More
We are an unlisted Public Company comprising 8 person on Board of Directors. Out of 8 directors, 4 are Independent Directors (including one woman director), 2 are Nominee Directors, 1 is Managing Director and remaining 1 is non executive director cum chairman. We need to know whether our company’s board composition is in compliance of Section 152 (6) of the CA 2013. As per section 152 (6), not less than 2/3 of the total number of directors of a public company shall be appointed on liable to retire by rotation basis and while counting total numbers of directors, independent director shall not be counted for this purpose. Further as per Shareholders’ Agreement nominee directors are not liable to retire by rotation and Managing director by virtue of his appointment of 3 years, he will also not be treated as retiring director. Thus we are left with one non executive director who is only retiring director. Do we need to appoint more directors to comply with Section 152 (6)? Your views are solicited.
-
Reply
- Views (1830)
- Posted By: Ujjwal 11 year(s) ago
|
With your response to my earlier query, understand payment of remuneration to director of pvt.ltd co making losses requires compli
Read More
With your response to my earlier query, understand payment of remuneration to director of pvt.ltd co making losses requires compliance with sch V & hence a general body resolution is required.Would like to raise the following 2 further questions: 1.Would clause (iv) of section II(B) of Schedule V be applicable requiring inclusion of items mentioned therein in the notice calling the general meeting, in case the salary is within limits specified in section II A. 2.Would the remuneration paid to such executive director be required to b disclosed in MGT 9 -item VI annexed to the Board's report. If so,under which item -A, B or C. Kindly advise.
-
Reply
- Views (1829)
- Posted By: Radha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1828)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1828)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
Form DIR 12 is to be filed for appointment of any director. The form requires disclosure of interest in other entities. The firs
Read More
Form DIR 12 is to be filed for appointment of any director. The form requires disclosure of interest in other entities. The first field pertains to CIN/LLPIN/FCRN/Registration no. Does it mean that the disclosure is required with respect to companies in which the appointee is director and/or shareholder, LLP in which he is partner, Foriegn company in which he is director and/or member, partnership firm in which he is a partner and HUF/Trust in which he is interested?. Is the disclosure same as required under Sec 184(1)?. If your answer is affirmative, should the director disclose his direct interests once again in the first board meeting which he attends after becoming director in compliance of Sec 184(1)?
-
Reply
- Views (1827)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1825)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1823)
- Posted By: K gopalan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1821)
- Posted By: Genicon 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1819)
- Posted By: Vibha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1818)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1817)
- Posted By: Radha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1815)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1813)
- Posted By: Unnikrishnan p s 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1810)
- Posted By: M b s agarwal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1809)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1809)
- Posted By: Rishav saraf 9 year(s) ago
|
I want to incorporate a company with 3 directors, 2 of them are in Germany, How to get documents attested in this case.
And wha
Read More
I want to incorporate a company with 3 directors, 2 of them are in Germany, How to get documents attested in this case.
And what about INC-9 and INC-10, these are to be printed on stamp paper and requires notary, how to do it practically.
Please note: the two directors who are in Germany are residing there since last 10 months and they have all the documents like PAN, Aadhar, Driving Licence etc.
If someone has done this, please answer, its quite urgent.
-
Reply
- Views (1808)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1808)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1807)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1806)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
Sec 74 starts with the words "where in respect of any deposit accepted by a company before the commencement of this Act". The Dep
Read More
Sec 74 starts with the words "where in respect of any deposit accepted by a company before the commencement of this Act". The Deposit rules 2014 made effective from 1.4.2014 states that deposit does not include unsecured loans accepted from directors. As a result unsecured loans from shareholders and relatives will fall within the definition of "deposits" wef 1.4.2014. However under the CA 1956 unsecured loans from directors as well as shareholders and relatives were excluded from "deposits". Does it imply that unsecured loans from shareholders/relatives accepted before the commencement of CA 2013 will not require compliance with Sec 74(1) of CA 2013?
-
Reply
- Views (1806)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1803)
- Posted By: Priyadarshini 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1803)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1802)
- Posted By: Sahil 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1801)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1796)
- Posted By: Sanjay sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1795)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1790)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1789)
- Posted By: Prerna 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1789)
- Posted By: Vandana bhatia 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1789)
- Posted By: Balachandran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1787)
- Posted By: Ca vinod goyal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1785)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1784)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1780)
- Posted By: Ravi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1774)
- Posted By: Rakesh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1773)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1770)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1769)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
Dear Members
Would request you all to please opine on the following:
Rights issue is governed by Section 62 (1)(a) of the CA
Read More
Dear Members
Would request you all to please opine on the following:
Rights issue is governed by Section 62 (1)(a) of the CA 2013. Rules don't talk much about the rights issue. For preferential allotment u/s 62 (1)(c), rules states that it needs to follow the compliances of Section 42 but not for rights issue
So can it be construed that for rights issue, section 42 is not applicable and accordingly there is no need to open separate bank account for the same and also there are no restrictions on utilization of Share Application money and it can be used for any purpose even before allotment?
Also can an allotment (not issue) be made through resolution by circulation.
Please advice
-
Reply
- Views (1765)
- Posted By: Khushboo 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1764)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1764)
- Posted By: Saravanan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1760)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1759)
- Posted By: Amol kshirsagar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1758)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
As per Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013. ‘It shall be the duty of every company creating a charge within or outside India, on
Read More
As per Section 77 of the Companies Act, 2013. ‘It shall be the duty of every company creating a charge within or outside India, on its property or assets ………………, to register the particulars of the charge………., with the Registrar within thirty days of its creation’. Charge has been defined as ‘an interest or lien created on the property or assets of a company or any of its undertakings or both as security and includes a mortgage’. Does that mean a Company is required to register details of Pledge created on shares held by it as investments. For example, Company A holds Equity Shares of Company B as Investments. Now Company A desires to pledge those investments in favour of C, do Company A require to Register the same with RoC, under the provisions of Companies Act, 2013
-
Reply
- Views (1757)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1757)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1753)
- Posted By: Anil 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1753)
- Posted By: Neeraj 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1753)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1750)
- Posted By: Anamika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1745)
- Posted By: Debabrata 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1745)
- Posted By: Vinay tripathi 8 year(s) ago
|
18.02.2016
Query regarding appointment of Whole time Director (WTD) - (Section 196)
Company “ABC ltd” at its meeting of the
Read More
18.02.2016
Query regarding appointment of Whole time Director (WTD) - (Section 196)
Company “ABC ltd” at its meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company held on 9th February, 2016 has appointed Mr. A (age more than 70 years) as a WTD of the Company with effect from 1st April, 2016 for a period of 3 years and Mr. B who is presently the WTD will retire with effect from the said date. As per rule 3 of The Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules, 2014 company “ABC ltd” is required to file return of appointment of a WTD in form MR-1 within 60 days of such appointment.
Query:
Whether 60 days will be counted from the date of Board meeting i.e., 9th February, 2016 or from the date of Annual General Meeting somewhere in August 2016 when the shareholder will pass special resolution for such an appointment.
-
Reply
- Views (1743)
- Posted By: Amish 9 year(s) ago
|
A foreign body corporate incorporates a company in India as its wholly owned subsidiary. Incase of non-individual subscribers it
Read More
A foreign body corporate incorporates a company in India as its wholly owned subsidiary. Incase of non-individual subscribers it is mandatory to attach MOA and AOA apostilled in pdf in Inc-32 Spice.
But if the authorised signatory comes down to India for incorporating the company and if he signs in subscriber clause for the body corporate what would be position of "apostillation" can it be locally notarised like other proofs and documents, since no body is available abroad to do all the procedures and he should be present there too to get all done. He is in India with valid business visa. Can anybody help on this. Thanks in advance.
-
Reply
- Views (1742)
- Posted By: Akila 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1742)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1741)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1741)
- Posted By: Sanket 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1739)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1736)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1735)
- Posted By: Pradeep kumar jain 10 year(s) ago
|
Has the express provision(section 23(3) Companies Act, 1956) providing continutiy of rights and obligations in case of change in n
Read More
Has the express provision(section 23(3) Companies Act, 1956) providing continutiy of rights and obligations in case of change in name been dropped in New Companies Act, 2013 Section 23(3) is brought out here for your ready reference"(3) The change of name shall not affect any rights or obligations of the company, or render defective any legal proceedings by or against it ; and any legal proceedings which might have been continued or commenced by or against the company by its former name may be continued by or against the company by its new name." what can be the implications if dropped.
-
Reply
- Views (1731)
- Posted By: Jay 11 year(s) ago
|
Rule 14(2) (a) of Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 provides that A company shall not make a privat
Read More
Rule 14(2) (a) of Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 provides that A company shall not make a private placement of its securities unless the proposed offer of securities or invitation to subscribe securities has been previously approved by the shareholders of the company, by a Special Resolution, for each of the Offers or Invitations:Provided that in the explanatory statement annexed to the notice for the general meeting the basis or justification for the price (including premium, if any) at which the offer or invitation is being made shall be disclosedProvided further that in case of offer or invitation for non-convertible debentures, it shall be sufficient if the company passes a previous special resolution only once in a year for all the offers or invitation for such debentures during the year.In the Companies Act 2013 YEAR has not been defined. Further section 2 (95) provides that words and expressions used and not defined in this Act but defined in the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 or the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 or the Depositories Act, 1996 shall have the meanings respectively assigned to them in those Acts.The word YEAR has also not been defined in the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 or the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 or the Depositories Act, 1996.Considering the above, views are sought if the approval of shareholders under the second proviso to Rule 14(2) (a) of Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Rules, 2014 needs to be taken on Financial year (defined in Companies Act 2013) basis or the said approval of shareholders can be taken on AGM to AGM basis or on calendar year basis.:
-
Reply
- Views (1725)
- Posted By: Manohar balwani 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1725)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1724)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1724)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1722)
- Posted By: K gopalan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1721)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1721)
- Posted By: Deepti vohra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1720)
- Posted By: Ashita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1720)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1717)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1716)
- Posted By: Anshita agarwal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1713)
- Posted By: M b s agarwal 11 year(s) ago
|
Hi,
We have a query relating to Section 167(b) of Companies Act 2013.
Query: Our Company is a Private Company having 6 Directors
Read More
Hi,
We have a query relating to Section 167(b) of Companies Act 2013.
Query: Our Company is a Private Company having 6 Directors on its Board. 3 Directors out of 6 Directors have attended the Board meeting held on 08/04/2015 only. After which they have not attended any meeting held on 01/07/2015, 08/09/2015, 31/12/2015, 23/03/2016, 26/05/2016, and 16/09/2016. And in this matter under section 167 (b) they need to vacant the office w.e.f. 01/07/2016. But 1 Director out of those 3 Directors has signed the Balance sheet dated 16/09/2016.
Further in board meeting dated 13/12/2016 the matter relating to appointment of those 3 Directors has been discussed.
What we need to do for cessation, please advise.
Thanks and Regards
CS Jyoti Aggarwal
-
Reply
- Views (1712)
- Posted By: Jyoti aggarwal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1708)
- Posted By: Priyadarshini 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1707)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1705)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1705)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1705)
- Posted By: Anubhav srivastava 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1704)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1703)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1703)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1702)
- Posted By: Ratanshi khatau tanna 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1699)
- Posted By: Sarada 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1698)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1696)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1693)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1693)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
Sec 148 of CA 2013 stipulates approval of appointment of cost auditor by audit committee if any followed by Board of Directors and
Read More
Sec 148 of CA 2013 stipulates approval of appointment of cost auditor by audit committee if any followed by Board of Directors and determination of remuneration by shareholders. The section is silent on the return to be filed with respect to the appointment of cost auditor though Sec 139 stipulates return to be filed with respect to appointment of statutory auditor. The relevant orders/rules with respect to cost records/cost audit are yet to be notified. Form 23 is to be filed under Sec 233(B) of CA 1956. In light of these facts, is it necessary to file form 23C with respect to appointment of cost auditor for FY 1415 to which CA 2013 is applicable?
-
Reply
- Views (1693)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1692)
- Posted By: Megha 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1689)
- Posted By: Duttalahiri & co 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1688)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1688)
- Posted By: Cs ram thakkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1688)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1687)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1681)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
We have incorporated a company with 5 lacs authorised capital in October 2013 with 2 individuals as subscribers to MOA. One indiv
Read More
We have incorporated a company with 5 lacs authorised capital in October 2013 with 2 individuals as subscribers to MOA. One individual is Indian resident subscribed for 1 share and the other is a foreign national [who is staying in india for the past 4years] who subscribed for 499 shares of rs.1000 each. Later, the parent company remitted 483000 towards share applicaation money and were allotted 483 shares. Authorised capital increased to 10 lacs also. 1 share is allotted to indian resident on receipt of money but no shares are allotted to foreign national. The FC GPR is filed with RBI. Now RBI is asking why the company has not allotted shares to foreign national when he agreed to subscribe for 499 shares in MOA? My question is it compulsory for company to allot shares to the subscribers to MOA before alloting to external investors. What section in companies act provides this? Company has closed its financial year ending 31st March 2013 and filed Annual compliances with ROC. Kindly suggest
-
Reply
- Views (1681)
- Posted By: Aravind 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1681)
- Posted By: Hem wadhawan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1678)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1671)
- Posted By: Rajesh chopra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1671)
- Posted By: Abhinaya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1669)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1667)
- Posted By: Khushboo 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1667)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1666)
- Posted By: Ekta shah 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1665)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1663)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1663)
- Posted By: Sandip ghosh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1663)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1663)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1661)
- Posted By: Rachna gupta singh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1660)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1659)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1658)
- Posted By: Girish sanghavi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1658)
- Posted By: Dheeraj khandelwal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1657)
- Posted By: Kamlesh g pandya 10 year(s) ago
|
This is in continuation of my query regarding a company regd u/s 25 of CA 1956 with liability limited by guarantee and with no sha
Read More
This is in continuation of my query regarding a company regd u/s 25 of CA 1956 with liability limited by guarantee and with no share capital. Rule 22 of Companies (Mgmt & admin) rules stipulate voting by postal ballot including electronic voting. It also states that the scrutiniser shall be available for ascertaining the requisite majority. So should the scrutiniser be available at the registered office to receive the postal ballots?. Can the selaed envlopes received at the registered office from members be provided to the scrutiniser (in selaed form) located at a place other than the registered office to enable him to ascertain the majority?
-
Reply
- Views (1657)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1654)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1653)
- Posted By: Ravi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1649)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1648)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1647)
- Posted By: Dharambir singh bisht 10 year(s) ago
|
Unlisted Public Company whose turnover exceeds 100 crores. Board consist of 6 directors
Chairman and Managing Director -1
Whol
Read More
Unlisted Public Company whose turnover exceeds 100 crores. Board consist of 6 directors
Chairman and Managing Director -1
Whole Time executive Directors - 3
Independent - None-executive directors -2
to constitute Nomination and Remuneration Committee under section 178 at lease three non-executive directors are required. ( company has 4 executive director and 2 non-executive independent directors)
However proviso to section says chairperson of the Company (whether executive or non-executive) can be appointed as member.
If company constitute Remuneration committee as under
1. Chairman of the Company- (Executive Director)- he will not chair committee
2. Independent directors ( Non-Executive Directors) - Two
whether it will be Validly constituted committee
Mahesh Bhavsar
-
Reply
- Views (1645)
- Posted By: Mahesh bhavsar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1643)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1643)
- Posted By: Deepak gulati 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1637)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1635)
- Posted By: Dindayal dhandaria 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1633)
- Posted By: Akjain 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1633)
- Posted By: Deepak gulati 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1633)
- Posted By: Ankit agarwal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1628)
- Posted By: Amod kumar jha 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1626)
- Posted By: Arpita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1625)
- Posted By: Deepak kumar falodia 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1622)
- Posted By: R&a associates 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1619)
- Posted By: K gopalan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1618)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1615)
- Posted By: Kunal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1612)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1609)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 9 year(s) ago
|
Our client is a pvt Ltd company having paid up capital of more than 10 crores. They have two corporate shareholders A&B) incorpo
Read More
Our client is a pvt Ltd company having paid up capital of more than 10 crores. They have two corporate shareholders A&B) incorporated outside India ( Japan). A holds more than 95%; B holds less than 1%. The company has got three directors of which two directors ( Non-executive directors in India) are common with A&B. B is subsidiary of A. The company has got transactions with A in respect of sale, purchase and rendering of services. In view of this, could you pl clarify the following a) whether sec 2 (76) (vi) is applicable b) whether Sec 2(76)(viii) is applicable as it talks about company c) whether A ( holding company ) can pass a special resolution in respect of transactions with wholly owned subsidiary d) whether sec 188 is attracted?
-
Reply
- Views (1607)
- Posted By: Balachandran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1607)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1605)
- Posted By: Rishav saraf 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1604)
- Posted By: Arpita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1604)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1603)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1602)
- Posted By: Mahesh shenoy 10 year(s) ago
|
a. what shall be the status of the aforesaid advances already lying outstanding for more than 365 day as at 31st March, 2014 as th
Read More
a. what shall be the status of the aforesaid advances already lying outstanding for more than 365 day as at 31st March, 2014 as the same were not treated as deposits under the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956? b. The Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules and sections 73 to 76 of the Companies Act, 2013 were made effective from 01.04.2014. Does this mean that only the advances from customers received on or after 01.04.2014 shall be treated as deposits if they cross limit of 365 days, and that the advances received prior to 31.03.2014 shall continue to remain subsisting and are not to be treated as deposits even if they are more than 365 days old? c. Does the Company need to file any form or return to the ROC for the advances from customers lying outstanding for more than 365 days as at 31st March, 2014?
-
Reply
- Views (1602)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1597)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1596)
- Posted By: Mukund govindharajan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1594)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1592)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1585)
- Posted By: Radha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1585)
- Posted By: Kamlesh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1581)
- Posted By: Sohrabh jindal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1578)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1578)
- Posted By: Sunny bajaj 10 year(s) ago
|
Rule 2f of the CSR Rules, 2014 provides meaning of the net profit of a company as per its financial statement prepared in accordan
Read More
Rule 2f of the CSR Rules, 2014 provides meaning of the net profit of a company as per its financial statement prepared in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Act, but shall not include the following, namely:—
ii any dividend received from other companies in India, which are covered under and complying with the provisions of section 135 of the Act:
Here I wish to know that any dividend received would be deducted from profit before tax or dividend is to be deducted of only those declaring cos which are covered under Section 135 of the Act. If yes to second option, whether disclosure of reason in Directors Report of not complying CSR liability shall be considered as compliance for the purpose of these rules.
-
Reply
- Views (1578)
- Posted By: Rakesh jain 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1573)
- Posted By: Sampath 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1569)
- Posted By: Aditi verma 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1566)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
As per section 42 of the companies Act,2013, provides that All monies payable towards subscription of securities under this sect
Read More
As per section 42 of the companies Act,2013, provides that All monies payable towards subscription of securities under this section shall be paid through cheque or demand draft or other banking channels but not by cash ,All monies received on application shall be kept in separate bank account a schedule bank. further as per Companies ( prospectus of securities) Rules,2014, such offer/ invitation shall be made to not more than 200 persons and the value of such offer or invitation per person shall be with an investment size of not less than twenty thousand rupees of face value. PAS-4 and PAS-5 is also required . I want to know all these provisions are applicable to producer companies or not?
-
Reply
- Views (1565)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1563)
- Posted By: Harpreet 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1560)
- Posted By: Radhey 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1560)
- Posted By: Ketan antani 11 year(s) ago
|
This is in continuation of my query on necessity to file Board resolutions approving financial accounts. The Board generally appr
Read More
This is in continuation of my query on necessity to file Board resolutions approving financial accounts. The Board generally approves and sign the draft accounts when presented to the auditors for their report thereon. The auditors report is adopted by the subsequently and the Board report is prepared and approved after perusal of auditors report. When these events are held on different dates, ie draft accounts are approved and signed on behalf of the Board in a meeting and the auditors report and Board report are approved in a subsequent meeting, should we file MGT 14 twice?. One within 30 days of the first meeting when the draft accounts are approved by the Board and the second within 30 days of the subsequent meeting in which the Board report is approved? Sec 179(3) read with Sec 117 stipulates filing of MGT 14 for approval of financial statements and Board report. Hence this query.
-
Reply
- Views (1559)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1559)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1559)
- Posted By: Jaya bhatia 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1552)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1551)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1550)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1549)
- Posted By: Divya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1548)
- Posted By: Kishore p shah 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1547)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1545)
- Posted By: Kejal shah 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1544)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1544)
- Posted By: K k arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1540)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
Section 152(7)(a) of Companies Act, 2013 provides for automatic re-appointment of a retiring director subject to certain condition
Read More
Section 152(7)(a) of Companies Act, 2013 provides for automatic re-appointment of a retiring director subject to certain conditions. It is a replica of earlier Section 256(4) of the Companies Act, 1956. What happens if the resolution for re-appointment of retiring Director is put to vote and is defeated meaning votes cast against exceeds votes for the Resolution. No other Director is appointed in the place of retiring director nor the meeting has expressly resolved not to fill the vacancy nor the meeting is adjourned. Kindly considering the above facts and advise, whether the retiring director deemed to have been re-appointed in this case.
-
Reply
- Views (1537)
- Posted By: Satish 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1536)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1533)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1532)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
A listed public company has passed resolution in Sept. 2010 for re-appointment of Managing Director for 5 years i.e (Sept. 2010 to
Read More
A listed public company has passed resolution in Sept. 2010 for re-appointment of Managing Director for 5 years i.e (Sept. 2010 to Sept. 2015) & their remuneration in Remuneration Committee, Board Meeting & Shareholders Meeting under the Companies Act, 1956. The Co. has obtained MCA approval for remuneration payment (5% of Profits) to MD year 2013-14 due to inadequate Profits. The Company has inadequate Profits in current year 2014-15 and required MCA approval. The Co. has not passed any resolution in Remuneration Committee, Board Meeting & Shareholders Meeting under the Companies Act, 2013 during the Year 2014-15. As per MCA Circular 32/2014 dated 23.07.2014 – Clarification on transitional period for resolutions passed under the Companies Act, 1956. It is clarified that resolutions approved or passed by companies under relevant applicable provisions of the old act during the period from 01st Sept, 2013 to 31st March 2014 can be implemented in accordance with provisions of old act, notwithstanding the repeal of the relevant provisions subject to the conditions a) That the implementation of the resolution actually commenced before 01st April, 2014 and b) That this transitional arrangement will be available upto expiry of one year from the passing of the resolution or 6 months from the commencement of the corresponding provision in new Act whichever is later. Now what are the options available to the company: 1. Apply to MCA for their approval on the basis of resolutions passed under the Old Act – The Companies act, 1956. Or 2. The company pass related resolutions in next AGM -2015 and apply to MCA after passing of resolutions for waiver of remuneration payment made to MD during the year 2014-15.
-
Reply
- Views (1532)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1530)
- Posted By: Nava bharat ventures limited 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1530)
- Posted By: Sunny bajaj 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1530)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1528)
- Posted By: Harpreet 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1526)
- Posted By: Priyadarshini 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1525)
- Posted By: Sanket 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1523)
- Posted By: Shekhar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1520)
- Posted By: Madhu 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1516)
- Posted By: Ravi kiran 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1516)
- Posted By: Vijay oganiya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1515)
- Posted By: Deepthi 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1512)
- Posted By: Pranay patel 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1511)
- Posted By: Ravinder 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1511)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1509)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1508)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
Ours is a listed Government Company. Article 32 of our Company relating to the appointment of Directors read as follows:
a) The C
Read More
Ours is a listed Government Company. Article 32 of our Company relating to the appointment of Directors read as follows:
a) The Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and all other members of the Board of Directors (except part-time Directors) shall be appointed by the President. Till the time Directors are appointed, the Subscribers shall be deemed to be Directors of the Company.
b) The part-time Directors shall be appointed by the President from time to time, as provided for in Article 31 supra.
c) The President may from time to time, appoint the Chairman or any of the Directors to the office of the Managing Director(s) of the Company for such term and remuneration (whether by way of salary or other- wise) as he may think fit. Any such Chairman/ Director appointed to any such office shall, If he ceases to hold the office of Chairman/Director from any cause, Ipsofacto, immediately cease to be Managing Director(s).
By virtue of the above Articles, all the Directors are being appointed by the President directly on the Board. What is the legality of the appointments such made in wake of the Section 152 and 160 of the Companies Act 2013? Do we need to take shareholders approval in the ensuing General Meeting for the same? It is pertinent to note here that our Articles do not contain any provision for appointment of Additional Directors.
-
Reply
- Views (1504)
- Posted By: Soumendra das 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1503)
- Posted By: Ankit 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1502)
- Posted By: Amit popli 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1502)
- Posted By: Anil 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1500)
- Posted By: Palani kumar b 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1499)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
I wish to hv others point of view in some points related to annual filing:
1. Form AOC 3 is applicable in case of listed companie
Read More
I wish to hv others point of view in some points related to annual filing:
1. Form AOC 3 is applicable in case of listed companies only.Right?
2. As answered in reply of a previous question, Form ADT-1 is not required to be filed every year but when we filed ADT-1 last year. The period of accounts for which auditors were appointed was filled up as 2014 to 2015.now how the same form will relate to financial year 2015-16.
3.As per new act consolidation of accounts of associate companies are also necessary and as per definition an associate company is that company in which the parent company have 20% or more share control. now if the shareholders of two company are common and they are also the Directors of both the companies. Will consolidation of accounts be required?
-
Reply
- Views (1499)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1497)
- Posted By: Chnadravijayshah 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1497)
- Posted By: Sandeep gandhi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1496)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1495)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1494)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1494)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1491)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1491)
- Posted By: Radhey 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1490)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1486)
- Posted By: T.r.chadha & co. 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1485)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1484)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1484)
- Posted By: Anamika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1480)
- Posted By: Venkatesan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1478)
- Posted By: Amit popli 11 year(s) ago
|
As per sec.184, after appointment as Director, The said person is required to disclose his interest in Form MBP-1 in the first me
Read More
As per sec.184, after appointment as Director, The said person is required to disclose his interest in Form MBP-1 in the first meeting he attends as Director. But The Form DIR-12 is required to be filed within 30 day of appointment of Director and one of the Mandatory point of DIR-12 is Interest in other entities.My query is regarding this contradiction only. How a company will fill up this information if the disclosure will be made by the director in the next meeting or only the interest in other entities as Director is required to be fillup here as the same is available in the consent form(DIR-2). If that is the case then the heading should be Directorship in other companies instead of interest in other entities. Can anybody explain?
-
Reply
- Views (1478)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
There are two group companies hving all the three common directors, one is a limited closely held co and the other one is private.
Read More
There are two group companies hving all the three common directors, one is a limited closely held co and the other one is private. Both the companies entered into a demerger scheme and the scheme has been approved by the high court.As per the scheme all the employees of the limited companies will be transferred to the private co. Do the word employees includes the all three whole time directors of the ltd. co. If yes, do we need to change the designation of the WTD to normal Directors in limited co and if yes which form is required to be filed, only DIR-12 for change in designation. When we start paying salary to the Directors from the private co in place of the limited co., do we need to file any form with ROC for that?
-
Reply
- Views (1475)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1475)
- Posted By: Sanjeev 10 year(s) ago
|
SHARE TRANSFER - Share Transfer Deed exceuted in 2000 by transferor & Tranferee. The shares was delisted from Stock Exchange for 7
Read More
SHARE TRANSFER - Share Transfer Deed exceuted in 2000 by transferor & Tranferee. The shares was delisted from Stock Exchange for 7-8 years. Now the company again listed with stock exchange. The Transfer deed executed in 2000 is valid OR not now for Transfer of Shares. As per the Companies Act, 2013 Transfer deed is not required to authenticate by ROC. The MCA has clarified regarding transfer of shares and validity of transfer deed vide Circular No. 19/2014 dated 12.06.2014.
Presently, SH 4 is not required to authenticate by ROC. Pls. clarify FORM 7B executed in 2000 will be required re-validate by ROC. OR the company will accept the same FORM 7B for transfer of shares.
-
Reply
- Views (1471)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1471)
- Posted By: Jai bhagchandani 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1469)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1467)
- Posted By: K g kogata 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1463)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1462)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1461)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1461)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1459)
- Posted By: Tanu 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1456)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1453)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1452)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1450)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1449)
- Posted By: Devesh k shah 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1448)
- Posted By: B.basu 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1447)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1447)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1445)
- Posted By: Lalitha kannan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1444)
- Posted By: Laqshya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1444)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
The question is regarding definition of Related Party u/s 2(76). ABC Pvt Ltd is holding 33% shares in XYZ Pvt Ltd. Besides substan
Read More
The question is regarding definition of Related Party u/s 2(76). ABC Pvt Ltd is holding 33% shares in XYZ Pvt Ltd. Besides substantial share holding, there are two common directors on the board of both these pvt companies. Therefore,
(1) whether both these Pvt companies will fall under the Related Party definition as per sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(76) ?
(2) As per the latest exemption notification, sub-clause (viii) of Section 2(76) will not be applicable to Pvt Companies for the purpose of Section 188. So, if both these pvt companies are exempted by virtue of sub-clause (viii) from Section 188, whether these pvt companies will continue to be exempted evenif they are covered by sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(76), which is not exempted for applicability of Section 188.
In nutshell, whether sub-clause (iv) and Sub-Clause (viii) of Section 2(76) shall be applied separately while deciding applicability of Sec 188 to Pvt Companies or sub-clause (viii) supersede sub clause (iv) while deciding the applicability of section 188 to Pvt companies.
Thank you in advance,
-
Reply
- Views (1439)
- Posted By: Dharmesh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1436)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1435)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1432)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1428)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1426)
- Posted By: Bharat 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1425)
- Posted By: Ankita 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1423)
- Posted By: Sanjay 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1421)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1419)
- Posted By: Ca vinod goyal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1418)
- Posted By: Sanjay sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
Dear Exerts,
XYZ is a Partnership Firm Auditor of a Listed Company for a period more than 15 years, but due to provisions of Rot
Read More
Dear Exerts,
XYZ is a Partnership Firm Auditor of a Listed Company for a period more than 15 years, but due to provisions of Rotation of Auditors XYZ will not be eligible to to reappointed for 5 Years.
Mr. Z a non signing of XYZ Firm resigned and Joined a new CA Firm ABC and ABC appointed as Auditor of That listed Company.
My question is that whether ABC can be appointed as Auditor of that Listed Company whose earlier auditor was XYZ ?
Whether Mr. Z who resigned my XYZ can sign Audit report of that listed company on behalf of New CA Firm ABC?
-
Reply
- Views (1415)
- Posted By: Nitin 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1413)
- Posted By: Rajeesh kumar c 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1411)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1408)
- Posted By: Hardam singh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1408)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
A private Company having two Directors(1 MD), MD term expired in March 2015 Co. holds a BM in Jan 2015 for his reappt. for furth
Read More
A private Company having two Directors(1 MD), MD term expired in March 2015 Co. holds a BM in Jan 2015 for his reappt. for further 2 years. Requirements : 1. hold BM, file MGT-14 within 30 days 2. Is is mandatory to file MR-1 for Pvt. Company? 3. Hold GM (its in feb 2015) and file MGT-14 again. 4. Co. having only 2 Directors. (( Can resolution for reappt. of MD in Board meeting ( Jan 2015) can be passed with one interested Director(MD) ))? One more query related to same. Can a single MGT-14 be file for MD reappt.(BM or GM) and Related party transactions?
-
Reply
- Views (1407)
- Posted By: Pankaj 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1407)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1403)
- Posted By: Arjun pitti 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1403)
- Posted By: Debabrata 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1401)
- Posted By: Naresh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1400)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1399)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1397)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1395)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1391)
- Posted By: Rajvi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1388)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1387)
- Posted By: Sridhar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1387)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
I LEFT A COMPANY IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008 AND AT PRESENT I AM WORKING AS A PRACTICING COMPANY SECRETARY. THE COMPANY HAS NOT FIL
Read More
I LEFT A COMPANY IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008 AND AT PRESENT I AM WORKING AS A PRACTICING COMPANY SECRETARY. THE COMPANY HAS NOT FILED FORM 32 OF MY CESSATION AND MY NAME IS APPEARING IN THE LIST OF SIGNATORIES ON MCA MASTER DATA. THE COMPANY HAS NOT FILED ANNUAL RETURN FROM THE YEAR 2007 TO 2015. ROC HAS LAUNCHED A PROSECUTION IN THE COURT AND I HAVE ALSO BEEN ARRAYED AS AN ACCUSED. NOW, PLEASE ADVISE ON FOLLOWING- 1. HOW MY NAME WILL BE REMOVED FROM MCA MASTER DATA AS I AM IN PRACTICE AND FORM 32/DIR-12 CAN NOT BE FILED. 2. HOW CAN I DEFEND MYSELF IN THE COURT.
-
Reply
- Views (1387)
- Posted By: Ravinder 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1385)
- Posted By: Vandana bhatia 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1383)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1383)
- Posted By: Jyoti 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1382)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1381)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1380)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1378)
- Posted By: Ankita kulkarni 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1376)
- Posted By: Ketan antani 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1375)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1374)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1372)
- Posted By: Vijay oganiya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1370)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1369)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1367)
- Posted By: Himanshu 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1367)
- Posted By: Vikram 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1364)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1362)
- Posted By: Jitendra kumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1360)
- Posted By: Suman kadyan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1358)
- Posted By: Gagandeep singh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1358)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
Seeking a clarification for following issue please.
Section 194 of Companies Act prohibits on forward dealings in securities of
Read More
Seeking a clarification for following issue please.
Section 194 of Companies Act prohibits on forward dealings in securities of the company by director or Key managerial personnel. Whether this section restricts to have Put & Call option at the time of issuing shares under the private placement route by unlisted public company.
Proviso to Section 58(2) of the Companies Act provides that any contract or arrangement between two or more persons in respect of transfer of securities shall be enforceable as contract.
Further, SEBI has issued some notification in relation to the same.
-
Reply
- Views (1358)
- Posted By: Sanam singh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1349)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1347)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1345)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1342)
- Posted By: Ratanshi khatau tanna 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1341)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1333)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1330)
- Posted By: Company secretary 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1329)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1322)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1316)
- Posted By: Sandeep gandhi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1315)
- Posted By: Mahendra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1312)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1310)
- Posted By: Sanket 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1308)
- Posted By: Nidhi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1307)
- Posted By: Sreenivas babu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1299)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1296)
- Posted By: Amruta tendulkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1296)
- Posted By: Neha mittal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1294)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1293)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1290)
- Posted By: Company secretary 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1281)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
A pvt co has appointed a WTD on 1.4.2014 in the BM subject to the approval of shareholders in the next shareholders meeting. The
Read More
A pvt co has appointed a WTD on 1.4.2014 in the BM subject to the approval of shareholders in the next shareholders meeting. The EGM was held on 1.5.2014 wherein the appt has been approved by the members. As per Sec 196 MR1 is to be filed within 60 days of such appointment. MR1 corresponds to Form 25C under CA 1956. So should we file MR1 twice in the case, ie once on approval by the Board and second post approval by the shareholders?. If yes, will the effective date of appointment in both the MR1 be 1.4.2014?. I suppose the effective date of appointment is treated as the date of event for calculation of fees.
-
Reply
- Views (1272)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1271)
- Posted By: K gopalan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1270)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1270)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1267)
- Posted By: U m nagaraj 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1264)
- Posted By: Naveen aggarwal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1262)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1262)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1261)
- Posted By: D singh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1257)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1255)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1255)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1253)
- Posted By: T.r.chadha & co. 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1250)
- Posted By: Nikki 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1246)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1246)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1246)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
The issue is : one private Limited company say A gives loan to another Private Limited company say B. Both this company have no co
Read More
The issue is : one private Limited company say A gives loan to another Private Limited company say B. Both this company have no common Director or shareholder, but the Directors of the One company is relative of others and further B is the shareholder of A limited ( Not to the extent of associate company). Now is A private Limited is giving loan to B Private Limited my opinion
1. A Private limited and B Private Limited is not related party. ( sec (2) (76)
2. Section 185- not applicable. ( as Director of one company is not Director or member in other company.)
3. Section 184(2) not applicable ( same logic as above)
4. Section 188 is not applicable ( as not related party)
5. and thus not cover u/s 189 thus transaction is not required to report in CARO for loan granted to parties listed in 189
it may coverunder u/s 186 as far as other provision is concern.
please give ur expert opinion on the matter.
-
Reply
- Views (1241)
- Posted By: Cs ram thakkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1241)
- Posted By: Vibha 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1240)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1239)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1238)
- Posted By: Neelam 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1235)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1231)
- Posted By: Manoj jangid 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1230)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1230)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1222)
- Posted By: Akhand 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1222)
- Posted By: Raghavan 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1217)
- Posted By: Kamlesh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1216)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1215)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1207)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1205)
- Posted By: B.basu 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1204)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
X Co. has taken Loan from NBFC, issued Debentures and executed Debenture Trust Deed.( DTD). Y Co has given its security to secure
Read More
X Co. has taken Loan from NBFC, issued Debentures and executed Debenture Trust Deed.( DTD). Y Co has given its security to secure Loan and there by secure Debentures and party to DTD
Reading of Rule 3 of Companies (Registration of Charges) Rules, 2014
For registration of charge as provided in sub-section (1) of section 77, section 78 and section 79, the particulars of the charge together with a copy of the instrument, if any, creating or modifying the charge in Form No.CHG-1 (for other than Debentures) or Form No.CHG-9 (for debentures including rectification),
Query : Whether Y Co shall required to file CHG-1 or CHG-9 ?
1. Now in this case though Y. Co is not issuing Debentures , but it shall create charge to secure Debentures issued by X Co.
2. Section 77 and Rule 3 , does not speak about Issuer of Deb., it specifies Charge creating Instrument
3. Eform filing is Instrument specific and not issuer specfic
Hence as per section and Rules Y. Co shall file CHG-9, instead of CHG-1
Kindly share your views
-
Reply
- Views (1198)
- Posted By: Mandar 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1198)
- Posted By: Hasmukh prajapati 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1195)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1193)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1190)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1186)
- Posted By: Amod kumar jha 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1186)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1186)
- Posted By: Naresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1181)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1180)
- Posted By: Vikram jeet singh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1179)
- Posted By: Rahul 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1177)
- Posted By: Gayathri 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1165)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1164)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1164)
- Posted By: Ashok 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1164)
- Posted By: Shristi jain 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1161)
- Posted By: Suman jain 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1156)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1154)
- Posted By: Jasleen 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1151)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
Till what time can e-form filing be delayed without attracting any prosecution and by only incurring additional fees. First Provis
Read More
Till what time can e-form filing be delayed without attracting any prosecution and by only incurring additional fees. First Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 403 of the Companies Act, 2013 provides time up to 270 days from the date of the event for filing the various returns / forms by only incurring additional fee and not attracting any prosecution or other penalty. Am I right in my understanding that delay in filing various returns / forms under the Companies Act 2013 up to 270 days from the date of the event would only attract additional fees and no other penal action.
-
Reply
- Views (1150)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1147)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 9 year(s) ago
|
Please clarify regarding Issue of Shares:
1. A Pvt. Ltd. company dealing in Multi media business
2.The remittance received in
Read More
Please clarify regarding Issue of Shares:
1. A Pvt. Ltd. company dealing in Multi media business
2.The remittance received in US$ in August 2013.
3. The company has given declaration to the bank on receiving of remittance – the remittance is received as investment by NRI on non repatriation basis.
4. The company has accounted above amount as Unsecured Loan in its Books of accounts.
5. Now, the company desire to convert Unsecured Loan into Equity Shares.
6. Please clarify:
Can the company issue Equity shares on conversion of unsecured Loan?
If yes What are the formalities need to comply?
-
Reply
- Views (1141)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1140)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1138)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1136)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1133)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1117)
- Posted By: Ashok 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1110)
- Posted By: Radha 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1108)
- Posted By: Pravin satardekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1108)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1107)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1101)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1100)
- Posted By: Mahesh 9 year(s) ago
|
As per sub- section 6 of Section 42 , A company shall allot its securities within sixty days from the date of receipt of the appl
Read More
As per sub- section 6 of Section 42 , A company shall allot its securities within sixty days from the date of receipt of the application money and if the company is not able to allot the securities within that period, it shall repay the application money to the subscribers within fifteen days from the date of completion of sixty days , otherwise it attracts penal provisions. In the given case, if the Company fails to allot shares or refund the amount due and if the Subscribers (Investors) furnishes an undertaking that they shall waive any interest or additional interest and agree to wait till such time the company allots the shares. Is this permissible?
-
Reply
- Views (1097)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1091)
- Posted By: Chandranil belvalkar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1083)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1048)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1046)
- Posted By: Siddhi 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1030)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
Hello Professionals, I have a Pvt Ltd which is inoperative since two years, I wish to windup the company using FTE mode & I had a
Read More
Hello Professionals, I have a Pvt Ltd which is inoperative since two years, I wish to windup the company using FTE mode & I had a few doubts:
-Is FTE mode still applicable as of today, because I don't see the form when I enquire for fees
-The board resolution to be passed to authorise the directors to make the winding up proceedings but we still have an operative bank account, I wanted to know if the same resolution can be done for both closure of bank account & authorising winding up proceedings.
-I have some cash balance, is it okey to have the cash balance as the directors have to give an affidavit that there are no assets & liabilities
-The Annexure A format says "Company registered under Companies Act 1956" but mine is registered under Companies act 2013 can I change the text.
-Do I need to file the board resolution with MCA before filling Form FTE
-What extra attachments do i need apart from these in Form FTE Attachments -Annexure A,B,C --Board Resolution
Regards.
diin_cs@denso.co.in
-
Reply
- Views (1024)
- Posted By: Deepak 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1023)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1022)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1011)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1011)
- Posted By: Gokul rathi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1010)
- Posted By: Alok srivastava 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1006)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1002)
- Posted By: Anupma khanna 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (992)
- Posted By: Rkdhandia 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (987)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (982)
- Posted By: Sreenivas babu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (969)
- Posted By: P banerjee 10 year(s) ago
|
As per the proviso to sec 129(3) Subsidiary company included Associates Companies also. Further as per regulation 16 (1) (c ) of S
Read More
As per the proviso to sec 129(3) Subsidiary company included Associates Companies also. Further as per regulation 16 (1) (c ) of SEBI (Listing Obligations And Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015 Definition “material subsidiary” which mean a subsidiary, whose income or net worth exceeds twenty percent of the consolidated income or net worth respectively, of the listed entity and its subsidiaries in the immediately preceding accounting year. So Does consolidated income or consolidated net worth mean consolidated income as per Section 129 (3) as per Companies Act 2013 or Consolidation is required for Holding and Subsidiary only Excluding Associates Company for the purpose of interpretation of regulation?
-
Reply
- Views (912)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (888)
- Posted By: Procs 8 year(s) ago
|
In Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting,
Audit, Transfer and Refund) Amendment Rules, 2017, in Rule 6(3)(
Read More
In Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority (Accounting,
Audit, Transfer and Refund) Amendment Rules, 2017, in Rule 6(3)(d) , in case where shares are held in physical form under (iv) the following is given
' after issue of duplicate share certificates, the company shall inform the depository by way
of corporate action to convert the duplicate share certificates into DEMAT form and transfer
in favour of the Authority.'
Query:
An unlisted company which has not registered with any depository for holding shares in demat form and hence has not given option to share holders to hold shares in demat form and all shares are held in physical form,
In the above case, for complying with IEPF Rules as per Rule 6(3)(d)(iv) in order to transfer unclaimed shares to IEPF, should the company has to compulsorily get themselves registered with a depository and offer its entire shares the option to hold in demat form and then transfer such of those unclaimed shares from physical to demat form to the credit of IEPF authority.
Also as per Rule 7
(4) After verification of the entitlement of the claimant-
(b) to the shares claimed, the Authority shall issue a refund sanction order with the approval of the Competent Authority and shall credit the shares to the DEMAT account of the claimant to the extent of the claimant’s entitlement.
Query:
When the shares of the unlisted company itself is not demat form and company has not offered such facility to shareholders, how the claimant shareholder can hold shares refunded by the Authority in demat account.
Requesting your goodself to please clarify
-
Reply
- Views (825)
- Posted By: Mukund govindharajan 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5441)
- Posted By: Vivek doshi & co 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (5335)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
1. Will ‘loan from own shareholders taken by a private limited nbfc’ come under the definition of Public Fund as per RBI Circ
Read More
1. Will ‘loan from own shareholders taken by a private limited nbfc’ come under the definition of Public Fund as per RBI Circular dated 01.09.2016 vide chapter II point 3 (xxv), though deposit/loan from own shareholders is not regarded “Public Deposit” and there is no outside fund, loan belongs to shareholders of company themselves.
2. Will ‘Overdraft against own Bank FDR taken by a private limited nbfc’ come under the definition of Public Fund/Bank finance as per RBI Circular dated 01.09.2016, whereas Bank FDR is not considered even as Financial Assets as per Rbi circular RBI/2011-12/446 DNBS (PD)CC.No.259 /03.02.59/2011-12 dated March 15, 2012 , since this Overdraft is only against NBFC’s own fund deposit as FDR to save interest, and there is no real Bank Finance, means any body can take Overdraft against FDR without going through any process as in other bank Finance, where one has to be understood of having character of three C’s i.e. Capability, Capacity and Character. In another words, If there is no FDR, there will be no overdraft, means no real Bank Finance.
3. Will loan from ‘Holding private limited NBFC’ to its ‘associate private limited NBFC’ and vice versa or ‘loan within group entities to one another’ come under ‘inter corporate deposit’ under Public Fund as per RBI Circular dated 01.09.2016, since in real sense there is no outside Public Fund is involved.
-
Reply
- Views (5121)
- Posted By: Pawan mittal 6 year(s) ago
|
*Conversion of Loan into capital[Sec 62(3)* Sec 62(3) states if company takes a loan on the term that loan will be converted int
Read More
*Conversion of Loan into capital[Sec 62(3)* Sec 62(3) states if company takes a loan on the term that loan will be converted into share capital & such an option have been approved before raising of loan by a special resolution, subscribed capital can be increased. *Procedure for conversion of loan into shares:* i. Approve terms of loan by passing special resolution before taking of loan & file special resolution in E-Form MGT14 within 30 days. ii. Convert loan into shares by passing resolution in Board Meeting & File Eform PAS3 for allotment of shares within 30 days. iii. Also issue share certificate by passing Board resolution & file Eform MGT 14 within 30 days for issue of shares. My query: Can we convert Loan taken by a company before the commencement of the CA, 2013 to shares and file pas-3 form?
-
Reply
- Views (4674)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (4427)
- Posted By: Mahesh bawge 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3930)
- Posted By: Vikram 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3601)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3465)
- Posted By: Sheejith 4 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3251)
- Posted By: Srinivasaraghavan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3160)
- Posted By: Srinivasaraghavan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3136)
- Posted By: Shrenik 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3135)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3081)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3077)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3035)
- Posted By: Khushboo khatreja 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (3006)
- Posted By: Hardam singh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2896)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2890)
- Posted By: Shrenik 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2875)
- Posted By: Bhoomika jain 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2848)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2837)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2833)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2829)
- Posted By: Ankit 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2823)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2819)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2761)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2759)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 7 year(s) ago
|
Hi I am not able to understand your reply. My Questions is acceptance of deposit from members (25% of Net worth) by company (Priv
Read More
Hi I am not able to understand your reply. My Questions is acceptance of deposit from members (25% of Net worth) by company (Private Limited and Unlisted Public limited company) other than eligible company in terms of section 73(2) of companies Act 2013.So If non-eligible a private limited and unlisted public limited company wants to accept deposit/unsecured loan from its members: 01. Is it compulsory to Obtain Credit Rating? 02. apart from sending copy of circular to members by post/email etc., Is it compulsory to Advertise Circular in two news paper, (Rule 4 (1) of Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Riles, 2014 ?
-
Reply
- Views (2695)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2691)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2658)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2628)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2609)
- Posted By: Abhishek dad 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2604)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2568)
- Posted By: Hardam singh 10 year(s) ago
|
Please guide whether analysis given below is proper. Interim dividend once declared cannot be revoked except in 2 cases 1) Where d
Read More
Please guide whether analysis given below is proper. Interim dividend once declared cannot be revoked except in 2 cases 1) Where declaration of dividend is ultra virus 2) Where co ceases to be a going concern Co cannot withdraw withing five days also after declaration as interim dividend once declared, like final dividend, is a debt due from co. Declaratin of dividend out of reserve: 1) Out of C.Y. Profit- set off losses and unab. Dep of all the P.Y's 2) Out of reserve- set off of LOSS ONLY ( and not dep.) Of that f.y. in which dividend is to be declared. Non payment of dividend is an offence Which is not compoundable as there is 'and' and not 'or' so be careful.
-
Reply
- Views (2551)
- Posted By: Ravi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2546)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2538)
- Posted By: K suresh babu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2508)
- Posted By: Mohan srinivasan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2499)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2494)
- Posted By: Shiv kumaran 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2480)
- Posted By: Rohit 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2439)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2391)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2364)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2354)
- Posted By: Kamlesh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2343)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2331)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2322)
- Posted By: Mahashweta pamnani 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2318)
- Posted By: Neha mittal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2316)
- Posted By: Rohit 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2315)
- Posted By: Anshul mittal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2313)
- Posted By: Mahashweta pamnani 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2292)
- Posted By: Barkha 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2286)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2285)
- Posted By: Rajapanduranga 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2279)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
[CS_yahoogroups) PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW
Actions
C S GROUP 16:45PM Keep this message at the top of your inbo
Read More
[CS_yahoogroups) PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF LAW
Actions
C S GROUP 16:45PM Keep this message at the top of your inbox Groups
To: C S GROUP
Sir/Madam,
Can anybody present the following matter before the "Company Law Committee"
One Co-operative society wants to get it registered as a Limited Company u/s 366 of the Companies Act 2013.
In this connection I went to ROC for discussion in relation to format of approval of majority of members of co-operative society and notice for such registration to be given by Co-operative society in News paper.
But ROC informed me that such registration under Part I of Chapter XXI has been stopped, since there is ambiguity in the Act and the rules notified for the said chapter.
ROC also informed me that there is an internal Order of Higher authorities for not registering such companies till further orders.
I think this is the problem in implementing the law.
You are requested to present before the Company Law Committee.
-
Reply
- Views (2271)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2269)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2241)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2222)
- Posted By: Mrattunjay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2181)
- Posted By: Vikram jeet singh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2172)
- Posted By: Barkha 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2171)
- Posted By: Pradeep arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2158)
- Posted By: Sachin 6 year(s) ago
|
One Private Limited Company have appointed “Voluntarily” (Not Mandatorily as required in terms of Section 203 of the Act) one offi
Read More
One Private Limited Company have appointed “Voluntarily” (Not Mandatorily as required in terms of Section 203 of the Act) one office of the Company as CEO who is not a Director of the Company. Kindly clarify the following :-
01. Will he term and considered as KMP in term of Provision of Section 2(51) of the Act ?
02. Will he termed and considered as officer in default in terms of Provision of section 2(60) of the Act ?
03. Whether the Company require to File Form DIR-12 in respect of his appointment as CEO ?
04. Is it mandatory to disclose details of appointment of such CEO in Board’s Report in terms of section 134 (3)(q) read with sub-rule 5 of rule 8 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2015 ?
04. Is it mandatory to sign Financial Statements by him in terms of section 134(1) of the Act ?
-
Reply
- Views (2155)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2155)
- Posted By: T.r.chadha & co. 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2153)
- Posted By: Ramnik bhimani 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2150)
- Posted By: Satish kshirsagar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2140)
- Posted By: Subhash 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2137)
- Posted By: Swetha 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2127)
- Posted By: Sreenivas babu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2114)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2099)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
Dear Experts,
One of my client running a proprietorship firm and possessing of land, building, plant and machinery in the propr
Read More
Dear Experts,
One of my client running a proprietorship firm and possessing of land, building, plant and machinery in the proprietor name and recently he has formed private limited company and having 50% of shares and remaining allotted to his wife and sons. Now my question is they wants to take over the proprietorship concern i.e. all assets and liability of the existing concern into private limited company. Whereas we have not mentioned these transaction in the object clause.
Can anyone provide the procedure to be followed without facing any consequences in future. and they wants to avoid the capital gain tax under income tax act.
Please share the step by step procedures.
-
Reply
- Views (2097)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2095)
- Posted By: Padmavathi k 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2088)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2086)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2081)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2054)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2049)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2044)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
One Private Limited Company have appointed “Voluntarily” (Not Mandatorily as required in terms of Section 203 of the Act) one offi
Read More
One Private Limited Company have appointed “Voluntarily” (Not Mandatorily as required in terms of Section 203 of the Act) one office of the Company as CEO who is not a Director of the Company. Kindly clarify the following :-
01. Will he term and considered as KMP in term of Provision of Section 2(51) of the Act ?
02. Will he termed and considered as officer in default in terms of Provision of section 2(60) of the Act ?
03. Whether the Company require to File Form DIR-12 in respect of his appointment as CEO ?
04. Is it mandatory to disclose details of appointment of such CEO in Board’s Report in terms of section 134 (3)(q) read with sub-rule 5 of rule 8 of the Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2015 ?
04. Is it mandatory to sign Financial Statements by him in terms of section 134(1) of the Act ?
-
Reply
- Views (2028)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2017)
- Posted By: Amitesh ravi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2010)
- Posted By: Gagandeep singh 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2010)
- Posted By: Chitra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2009)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2007)
- Posted By: Joshua dsouza 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2004)
- Posted By: Bhavita nandu 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (2000)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1999)
- Posted By: Neha mittal 10 year(s) ago
|
Based on MCA circular 8/2014 and CSR rules, the CSR reporting in the directors report will not be applicable to a Company which ha
Read More
Based on MCA circular 8/2014 and CSR rules, the CSR reporting in the directors report will not be applicable to a Company which has FY Jan – Dec 2014. The query is, are these companies whose FY have started prior to Apr 2014 required to spend any CSR budget in their FY 2014? Even if they spend, there is no reporting in their directors report for FY 2014. Query 2 is – Suppose a company is required to spend Rs.100 in a particular FY, was able to spend just Rs.60. The requirement is that Company shall give details of Rs.60 spent and the reason for not spending Rs.40 in the CSR report in the directors report. What will happen to Rs.40 that is unspent? Will it goes back to the business of the Company or needs to be spent in succeeding years. Please clarify with relevant provisions.
-
Reply
- Views (1997)
- Posted By: Vijayamahantesh khannur 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1991)
- Posted By: Jasvir walia 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1988)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1988)
- Posted By: Kaushik d nahar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1988)
- Posted By: Bijal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1981)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1978)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar singh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1978)
- Posted By: Ramnik bhimani 10 year(s) ago
|
Recently MCA has given list of Disqualified Directors and period of Disqualification is 5 years. My query is if one person has a D
Read More
Recently MCA has given list of Disqualified Directors and period of Disqualification is 5 years. My query is if one person has a Director in 4 different Companies say A Ltd, B. Ltd, C Ltd & D Ltd A Ltd - Company Status is Strike off -- MCA has given his name in Disqualified Directors List B Ltd -- Company Status is Active -- MCA has given his name in Disqualified Directors List due to annual return is not filed. C Ltd - Company Status is Active -- MCA has not given his name in Disqualified Director List -- Annual Return is pending for filing past 3 Years D Ltd- Company Status is Active -- MCA has not given his name in Disqualified Director List - Company is regular in filing of his annual return. Whether above Director is disqualified from all 4 Companies ? Whether he should continue or Discontinue in active Companies ? in Case of B Ltd and C Ltd ,Whether Company can file its annual return without prior approval of any authority? In D Ltd Director should continue or not ? How to Remove disqualification of Director ?
-
Reply
- Views (1977)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1975)
- Posted By: Manohar balwani 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1969)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1958)
- Posted By: Bhasi 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1956)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1955)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1944)
- Posted By: Sridhar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1942)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1936)
- Posted By: Ankit kishore sinha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1933)
- Posted By: Sashank 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1933)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1926)
- Posted By: Lalitha kannan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1922)
- Posted By: Sanjay 4 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1910)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1908)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1899)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1894)
- Posted By: Kundan kumar jha 11 year(s) ago
|
In case of definition of a subsidiary company what is the meaning of "Controls the composition of Board of Directors"
To illustra
Read More
In case of definition of a subsidiary company what is the meaning of "Controls the composition of Board of Directors"
To illustrate with an example : A listed company has 10 Directors which includes 3 promoter Directors ,2 Non executive Directors and 5 Independent Directors. Out of the 3 promoter Directors one is MD/CEO of the company and another one is the executive chairman of the company and the third is a woman Director who is the spouse of the MD.
If these 3 promoter Directors are the only Directors and hold majority shares in another company , does the later company become a subsidiary of the former listed company??
-
Reply
- Views (1892)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1890)
- Posted By: Sudhakar raman 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1888)
- Posted By: Sridhar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1886)
- Posted By: Pradeep arora 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1883)
- Posted By: Vriti bohra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1882)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1882)
- Posted By: Vikas kataria 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1881)
- Posted By: Sapna tomar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1880)
- Posted By: Ankit kishore sinha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1877)
- Posted By: Sridhar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1870)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1867)
- Posted By: Anant jajodia 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1856)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1854)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1850)
- Posted By: Abhinaya 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1846)
- Posted By: Hardam singh 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1844)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1844)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1841)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1832)
- Posted By: Dawood 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1825)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1823)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1819)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1819)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1818)
- Posted By: Company secretary 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1817)
- Posted By: Vivek mittal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1811)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1808)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1807)
- Posted By: Ravi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1804)
- Posted By: T.madhusudhanan 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1804)
- Posted By: Mahashweta pamnani 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1803)
- Posted By: Gopika m n 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1800)
- Posted By: Neha sapra 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1800)
- Posted By: Mehak 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1799)
- Posted By: Govind toshniwal 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1794)
- Posted By: Ankit singhi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1786)
- Posted By: Ankit singhi 11 year(s) ago
|
As per sec-90 significant beneficial owner needs to give the declaration in FORM-BEN-1, who holds more than 10%. my company is a w
Read More
As per sec-90 significant beneficial owner needs to give the declaration in FORM-BEN-1, who holds more than 10%. my company is a wholly owned subsidiary co. of a foreign company and there is no such individual found who holds more than 10%, in such case senior managing official has to give the declaration. so my question is senior managing official of the reporting entity or the parent co. needs to give the declaration in FORM-BEN-1?
Another ques of mine is that there is no such definition of senior managing official given in the section and the rules...so who will be treated as the senior managing official??
-
Reply
- Views (1786)
- Posted By: Aastha khanna 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1784)
- Posted By: Gagandeep singh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1783)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1781)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1781)
- Posted By: Focal coporate 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1778)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1777)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar singla 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1777)
- Posted By: Gopika m n 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1774)
- Posted By: Sachin soni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1774)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1773)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1771)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1770)
- Posted By: Vinay b l 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1767)
- Posted By: U l basak & co. 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1765)
- Posted By: Dharmesh bohra 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1762)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1759)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
Sir Please advise me: Query 1: A Pvt ltd is to be converted in to LLP. Whether Board Resolution by the Pvt ltd co. is sufficient
Read More
Sir Please advise me: Query 1: A Pvt ltd is to be converted in to LLP. Whether Board Resolution by the Pvt ltd co. is sufficient for Conversion in to LLP or Extraordinary general meeting is further required to be conducted for the conversion? Query 2: E-form 18 under LLP act requires to obtain the Consent from Shareholders of the pvt ltd for conversion. Whether Simple consent by Shareholders by way of letter is sufficient or calling EGM is needed? Query 3: Whether MGT- 14 form is needed to be filed in both the above mentioned queries ? Thanking You With Regards
-
Reply
- Views (1759)
- Posted By: Kamal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1756)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
As for as my understanding to remove auditor company has to call for the board meeting and pass the resolution for removal of the
Read More
As for as my understanding to remove auditor company has to call for the board meeting and pass the resolution for removal of the auditor and file the form with the RD in the ADT 2 after approval of RD hold the general meeting and pass the special resolution and replace the auditor
But my question is under the provision of section 140 says "before taking any action reasonable opportunity should be given to the auditors". when the opportunity should be provided.
i have 2 stages where opportunity should have been given 1. in the board meeting (then what is the notice period). 2. in the GM (then what is use of Going to central govt if the shareholder does not remove such auditor inspire of RD approval).
please give your inputs on the same.
-
Reply
- Views (1755)
- Posted By: Naman 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1754)
- Posted By: Surendra dalvi 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1729)
- Posted By: Jai bhagchandani 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1728)
- Posted By: Rajkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1728)
- Posted By: Debabrata 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1727)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1726)
- Posted By: Akansha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1720)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1720)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1719)
- Posted By: Radhika 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1712)
- Posted By: Sanjay sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
There are two group companies hving all the three common directors, one is a limited closely held co and the other one is private.
Read More
There are two group companies hving all the three common directors, one is a limited closely held co and the other one is private. Both the companies entered into a demerger scheme and the scheme has been approved by the high court.As per the scheme all the employees of the limited companies will be transferred to the private co. Do the word employees includes the all three whole time directors of the ltd. co. If yes, do we need to change the designation of the WTD to normal Directors in limited co and if yes which form is required to be filed, only DIR-12 for change in designation. When we start paying salary to the Directors from the private co in place of the limited co., do we need to file any form with ROC for that?
-
Reply
- Views (1710)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1709)
- Posted By: Mahashweta pamnani 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1707)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1705)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1703)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1702)
- Posted By: Avijit 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1699)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1699)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1698)
- Posted By: Neha goni 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1696)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1695)
- Posted By: Sachin 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1689)
- Posted By: Balachandran 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1685)
- Posted By: S.m.gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
one of my customer having private limited company but no operation past 5 - 6 years and neither filing financial statement nor ann
Read More
one of my customer having private limited company but no operation past 5 - 6 years and neither filing financial statement nor annual returns. And he is also a director in other company where the company running so far and filed their financial statement and annual return up to date. Now due to defunct company he got the status of the disqualification w.e.f 01.11.2017 to 31.10.2022. What is the remedy to revoke the disqualification u/s 164(2) of ca 2013. As per my understanding even the director can't file a petition before the high court through writ jurisdiction.
Is any other way to come out from the aforesaid issue. Please let us know.
thanks in advance.
-
Reply
- Views (1681)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1675)
- Posted By: Sachin 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1670)
- Posted By: Deepak 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1670)
- Posted By: Mohit seth 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1669)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1657)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
A director in a private company is also a director in another private company (common directorship) and he disclosed his interest
Read More
A director in a private company is also a director in another private company (common directorship) and he disclosed his interest pursuant to Sec.184(1) of Companies Act, 2013. If any one Company is providing loans or advances to other Private Companies in which Director is interested, In such case, whether lending company is required to Comply with the exemption given to private Company under section 185 of Companies Act, 2013 or not ??? if in case both Companies are public Company , whether they can enter into such transaction (i.e. Loans & Advances) if Directors are Common ??
-
Reply
- Views (1655)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
in a private limited company, Annual Filing of year 2014 is pending, the company has filed MGT-14 related to Adoption of Accounts
Read More
in a private limited company, Annual Filing of year 2014 is pending, the company has filed MGT-14 related to Adoption of Accounts, Directors report within due date. but the auditor has given his resignation on 31/03/2014 and practically the accounts are not audited on due date. Auditor's resignation is not yet filed to ROC. Now my question is if such casual vacancy of auditor is filled by appointing new auditor by the board which exceed 300 days, will it amounts to any other penalty or compounding other than Additional feed on such board resolution?
-
Reply
- Views (1649)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1648)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1646)
- Posted By: Manjeet singh 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1646)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1645)
- Posted By: Sunu manuel 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1643)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1639)
- Posted By: Renu sharma 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1638)
- Posted By: M b s agarwal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1638)
- Posted By: Siva naga vijay babu guggilam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1637)
- Posted By: Revathy` 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1637)
- Posted By: Shubha 10 year(s) ago
|
If a company hold an EOGM to approve the offer of shares u/s 42 & 62 and file MGT-14 within 30 days and then call board meeting ne
Read More
If a company hold an EOGM to approve the offer of shares u/s 42 & 62 and file MGT-14 within 30 days and then call board meeting next month and issue offer letter, F-GNL-2 with PAS-4 is to be filed within 30 days of this board meeting but Form GNL-2 asks for the EOGM date only. How should we file PAS-4 issued in the board meeting held after EOGM? I we enter the details of MGT-14 and date of EOGM in point 5 of the form then point 8 automatically filled up with the same date. But in fact the two dates are different. The PAS 4 is issued in the Board meeting after one month of the EOGM and if we file the form with EOGM date it will be late obviously and otherwise also it is not correct. PAS4 is to be filed within 30 days of its issue date.Can anybody help if they hv filed this form? itis urgent.
-
Reply
- Views (1635)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1632)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1632)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1631)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1629)
- Posted By: Gowri 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1628)
- Posted By: V s khanna 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1624)
- Posted By: Suparna 11 year(s) ago
|
A person who does not hold DIN cannot be appointed as director as per Section 152 r/w Section 164(1)(h) of the Act. Rule 2(d) defi
Read More
A person who does not hold DIN cannot be appointed as director as per Section 152 r/w Section 164(1)(h) of the Act. Rule 2(d) definition for DIN under Appointment and Qualifications of directors provides "............ issued by CG to any individual ........ to be appointed or to any existing director of a company. Can anybody Kindly enlighten on this. There are so many existing directors who ve already given their consent but got allotted DIN recently or yet to get DIN allotment. If this is the case what would be scenario between the date of appointment and the date of allotment of DIN if appointment is prior to allotment of DIN.
Thanks in advance.
-
Reply
- Views (1621)
- Posted By: Akila 9 year(s) ago
|
Listed Companies and companies belonging to such class shall appoint or re-appoint an auditor for 1 or 2 term as the case may be,
Read More
Listed Companies and companies belonging to such class shall appoint or re-appoint an auditor for 1 or 2 term as the case may be,
Query1: My firm is an auditor of private limited company from 2009-2010 and in F.Y 14-15, the public borrowings of the company exceeds 50Cr, now whether the rotation of auditors will apply to my firm and if, then for how many years my firm can continue as an auditor for this company.
Query 2: When we have to see the applicability of the provision rotation of auditor, whether it is every year or at the end of term completed (after 5 years).
Query 3 : Whether the company is required to file ADT-1 Every year even he is appointed for 1 term (say 5 year), however for every year ratification whether ADT-1 is required to be filed.
-
Reply
- Views (1618)
- Posted By: Chirag shah 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1617)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1611)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1608)
- Posted By: Soumya 11 year(s) ago
|
Rule 6 of The Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014) provide that the consolidation of financial statements of the company shall be mad
Read More
Rule 6 of The Companies (Accounts) Rules, 2014) provide that the consolidation of financial statements of the company shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Schedule III of the Act and the applicable accounting standards.
On 16 January 2015, the MCA issued an amendment that provides that:
(ii) in rule 6, after the third proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely :—
“Provided also that nothing in this rule shall apply in respect of consolidation of financial
statement by a company having subsidiary or subsidiaries incorporated outside India only for
the financial year commencing on or after 1st April, 2014.”
In the light of the amended rule we would like to understand whether the exemption from preparing consolidated financial statements for the financial year 2014-15 is available if a company has foreign subsidiaries along with Indian subsidiaries, or will be available if a company has only foreign subsidiaries but no Indian subsidiaries.
-
Reply
- Views (1603)
- Posted By: Pradeep chugh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1599)
- Posted By: Aarti rathod 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1596)
- Posted By: K vasantha kumar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1594)
- Posted By: Surendra dalvi 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1593)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1592)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1585)
- Posted By: Rahul 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1583)
- Posted By: Sayed mahmood alam 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1583)
- Posted By: Anil 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1583)
- Posted By: Rahul kumar jain 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1582)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1581)
- Posted By: Pooja hiranandani 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1581)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1579)
- Posted By: Piyush 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1575)
- Posted By: Raju srungaram 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1573)
- Posted By: Priyanka 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1571)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1570)
- Posted By: Mahashweta pamnani 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1565)
- Posted By: Ram 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1559)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1558)
- Posted By: Sonam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1557)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1553)
- Posted By: Deepak gulati 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1551)
- Posted By: Ankit singhi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1546)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1544)
- Posted By: Abhinaya 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1541)
- Posted By: Mahender 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1540)
- Posted By: Hitender tanwar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1540)
- Posted By: Atul kulkarni 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1536)
- Posted By: Jagruti 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1536)
- Posted By: Shylendrakumar t r 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1532)
- Posted By: Sanjay 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1531)
- Posted By: R.kandasubramanian 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1527)
- Posted By: Nirupama v 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1526)
- Posted By: T.r.chadha & co. 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1526)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1526)
- Posted By: Suman jain 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1525)
- Posted By: Shairill a. dubey 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1524)
- Posted By: Fairanddeal2008 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1523)
- Posted By: Jaya bhatia 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1523)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1516)
- Posted By: Falguni sanghvi 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1512)
- Posted By: Nirupama v 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1512)
- Posted By: Smita lohia 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1508)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1501)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1501)
- Posted By: Kamlesh g pandya 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1499)
- Posted By: K k arora 10 year(s) ago
|
A company has two subsidiaries in one it holds 100% share capital and in other around 70% shares are in the holding company's name
Read More
A company has two subsidiaries in one it holds 100% share capital and in other around 70% shares are in the holding company's name and rest 30 % in the Director's name, which are common in all the three companies.Now for the finalisation of accounts consolidated Financial statements will be made of all the three companies but will the transactions/loans etc held between the holding company and its 2nd subsidiary which is not a 100% subsidiary will attract section 185 and 188 as at the date of balance sheet i.e. 31st march'2015.all the three companies are in the real estate development business and therefore use to do business collectively means to say one has the land the other develops it and the third may done the construction part.
can we treat their work division as done in the ordinary course of business at arm's length or a resolution is required to be passed. The capital of all the three is below 10 crs.
-
Reply
- Views (1499)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1498)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1498)
- Posted By: Sanjay sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
An unlisted public company proposes to issue compulsorily convertible debentures on rights basis. It proposes to pass board resolu
Read More
An unlisted public company proposes to issue compulsorily convertible debentures on rights basis. It proposes to pass board resolution and special resolution at general meeting for the issue as required u/s 71(1). Request the following clarifications: 1.Since debentures are compulsorily convertible, presume will not be covered by sub-sec (3) of sec 62, which deals with increase in subscribed capital arising from exercising option to convert. So would it be in order for the company to follow the process in sub-sec (1) & (2) of Sec 62 for issue of these debentures? 2.Would the company berequired to follow rule 13 of Cos.(Share Capital & Debentures) Rules for determination of the price of shares on conversion of debentures by registered valuer,though not a preferential issue but only a rights issue,which may result in shares allotted to persons other than shareholders through renunciation. 3.Where the offer is to less than 500 members, can the issue be made without appointing a debenture trustee and also without creating security on the company's property? Kindly clarify Request the following clarifications:
-
Reply
- Views (1494)
- Posted By: Radha 10 year(s) ago
|
My Query is placed below. A private limited company is proposing to hold its board meeting for adopting the accounts on 22nd
Read More
My Query is placed below. A private limited company is proposing to hold its board meeting for adopting the accounts on 22nd September 2014. The notice for the said board meeting would be circulated on or before 14th August 2014. The company is compliance with the provisions of the act of holding the meeting without a gap of more than 120 days between two meetings. Now the query is, as per Section 136 of the Companies Act, 2013, it is mentioned that we have to circulate the copy of the audited financial statement along with the auditor’s report and other relevant attachments to the members not less than 21 days prior to the general meeting. That means the Company has to conduct the board meeting atleast 23 clear days prior to the AGM to be compliance with the Section. As per the recent circular from the Ministry on the maintenance, preparation, adoption and filing of the financial statement and related attachment, it was stated that all financial statements pertaining to period prior to 1st April, 2014, shall be governed by the Companies Act, 1956. Considering the above circular, would request your views as to whether the Company can follow the provisions under Section 219 of the Companies Act, 1956, wherein it is stated that if 21 days clear notice is not given, then it shall be deemed to have been sent, if the same is agreed upon by all the members entitled to vote at the meeting. Now the issue is, on a conservative reading of the circular, it only refers to the adoption and reporting which is like the annual return and annual report including the director’s report / compliance certificate etc. Hence would also request your inputs on the fact that if the relevant section136 and also the section where the notice of shareholders meeting to be given to auditors under section 146 could have been kept in abeyance. Please provide your views at the earliest on the same.
-
Reply
- Views (1486)
- Posted By: Unnikrishnan p s 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1485)
- Posted By: Chnadravijayshah 10 year(s) ago
|
Dear Group Members:- Request for provide your views for the below matter :- Roc has filed the case in reference of prosecution un
Read More
Dear Group Members:- Request for provide your views for the below matter :- Roc has filed the case in reference of prosecution under section 162 (1), 220 (3) against the company in April 2008 , The Hon'ble CJM COURT, ALIPORE has been stated in the order on 15.09.2014 as The case is withdrawn u/s 257 of CRPC. Is there any need for company to file INC 28 ( form 21 - 1956), if yes then what is the time limit for the same, and as still company has not filed the same what will be steps for the same. If no then why still in master data the same is showing in Prosecution details, company have already send the hard copy to ROC by registered post. In the light of Decision / order of Hon'ble CJM COURT, ALIPORE as stated above company approached the MCA also and from there company got reply "Please contact ROC on this.We are not authorized to do so." Request to guide the same.
-
Reply
- Views (1485)
- Posted By: Nitn mehta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1483)
- Posted By: Sanjay sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1482)
- Posted By: Deepak gulati 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1477)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1470)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1445)
- Posted By: Sangeetha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1434)
- Posted By: Sarada 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1432)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1431)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
Hi Sir,
Is reporting on "Internal Financial Control" u/s 134(5)(e) is mandatory for private limited companies? Section only pres
Read More
Hi Sir,
Is reporting on "Internal Financial Control" u/s 134(5)(e) is mandatory for private limited companies? Section only prescribes for listed companies. However Rule 8(5)(viii) says that Directors have to report the effectiveness of IFC in the Board statement. But nowhere it mentions that it is applicable for private limited companies. But Guidance Note says that IFC is applicable for ALL companies. Also sec 143(3)(i) says that auditor has report on the effectiveness of IFC in their report.
So can you please clarify whehter IFC is applicable for private companies or not. My doubt is if the section itself says it is applicable only to public companies how can rules/guidance note says that it is applicable to all comapnies as they are generaly meant for providing explanation to the sections that were enacted in the law.
Regards,
Vinay
-
Reply
- Views (1431)
- Posted By: Arpitha 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1430)
- Posted By: Nirmal bang financial services private limited 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1427)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1423)
- Posted By: Shekhar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1418)
- Posted By: Ulka kulkarni 12 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1418)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1417)
- Posted By: Nava bharat ventures limited 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1415)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1411)
- Posted By: Astha 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1405)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1404)
- Posted By: Venkatesan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1400)
- Posted By: Sonam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1397)
- Posted By: Ravinder 10 year(s) ago
|
My public limited closely held company wants to do allotment to existing shareholders (Right Issue) in Demat mode. My registered
Read More
My public limited closely held company wants to do allotment to existing shareholders (Right Issue) in Demat mode. My registered office is in Agartala, Tripura and corporate office in Delhi.
My Board meeting for allotment will be held in Delhi and issue of share certificate will also be in delhi.
my queries are
1. Where I need to pay stamp duty on allotment/issue of share certificate ( Delhi or Tripura)
2. What is the applicable rate of duty at both the places
3. Relevant section applicable on transaction.
4. What is the procedure for paying the stamp duty.
5. Authority to be approached.
Pls guide on above.
9871293629
-
Reply
- Views (1395)
- Posted By: Neeraj 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1390)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1380)
- Posted By: Yuga 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1375)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1371)
- Posted By: R&a associates 10 year(s) ago
|
A private limited company was incorporated in fy 2011-2012 but till date that company has not complied any of the roc compliances.
Read More
A private limited company was incorporated in fy 2011-2012 but till date that company has not complied any of the roc compliances. Now the owner of the company wishes to comply all roc compliances and has agreed to pay additional fee as well for form submission. My questions are
1) For the fys 2011-12, 12-13 and 13-14 Whether all compliances shall be as per the companies act 1956 or 2013? kindly refer section, circular or notification in support of answer.
2) After incorporation auditor was appointed for the FY 2011-2012 but no compliance was made thereafter. What shall be the procedure for appointment of auditor for FY 12-13 & 13-14 other than the retiring auditor?
-
Reply
- Views (1370)
- Posted By: Subhash bhaskar 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1364)
- Posted By: Aravind 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1363)
- Posted By: Priti jaiswal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1358)
- Posted By: Rr 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1357)
- Posted By: Nitin 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1351)
- Posted By: Purva arora 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1350)
- Posted By: Naresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1346)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1339)
- Posted By: Sarada 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1338)
- Posted By: Nidhi 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1334)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1330)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1329)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
Seeking a clarification for following issue please.
Section 194 of Companies Act prohibits on forward dealings in securities of
Read More
Seeking a clarification for following issue please.
Section 194 of Companies Act prohibits on forward dealings in securities of the company by director or Key managerial personnel. Whether this section restricts to have Put & Call option at the time of issuing shares under the private placement route by unlisted public company.
Proviso to Section 58(2) of the Companies Act provides that any contract or arrangement between two or more persons in respect of transfer of securities shall be enforceable as contract.
Further, SEBI has issued some a notification.
-
Reply
- Views (1329)
- Posted By: Sanam singh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1321)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1319)
- Posted By: Ashok 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1305)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1301)
- Posted By: Krishna kumar gaggar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1300)
- Posted By: Sanjay dewan 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1297)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
Seeking a clarification for following issue please.
Section 194 of Companies Act prohibits on forward dealings in securities of
Read More
Seeking a clarification for following issue please.
Section 194 of Companies Act prohibits on forward dealings in securities of the company by director or Key managerial personnel. Whether this section restricts to have Put & Call option at the time of issuing shares under the private placement route by unlisted public company.
Proviso to Section 58(2) of the Companies Act provides that any contract or arrangement between two or more persons in respect of transfer of securities shall be enforceable as contract.
Further, SEBI has issued some notification in relation to the same.
-
Reply
- Views (1297)
- Posted By: Sanam singh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1296)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
In continuation of my query on beneficial interest as replied by Akila pl. clarify why the transferor will sign anything after sig
Read More
In continuation of my query on beneficial interest as replied by Akila pl. clarify why the transferor will sign anything after signing the transfer deed at the time of sale. And the beneficial owner is already signing the FormMGT-5. I am asking about the certificate at the end of MGT 5 which is required to be signed by the person who has transferred the beneficial interest in the shares who will be that person. Further a certified copy of the resolution passed by the company for which the registered owner is holding the shares as nominee is enough as document of beneficial interest.Further as replied by Ankit if it is signed by the beneficial owner thn what is the need to give it seperately as a certificate the BO is the one who is to sign the MGT 5 . It is really confusing pl clarify who is the person who has transferred the beneficial interest in the shares and how.
-
Reply
- Views (1294)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1289)
- Posted By: Binay 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1287)
- Posted By: Cs rohit 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1286)
- Posted By: Shraddha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1286)
- Posted By: Sonam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1282)
- Posted By: Manisha 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1282)
- Posted By: Ca.kousik ghosh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1278)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1276)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1267)
- Posted By: Vijay oganiya 10 year(s) ago
|
In case of companies other thn small companies and all public companies the form AOC-4 and MGT-7 required to be certified by the p
Read More
In case of companies other thn small companies and all public companies the form AOC-4 and MGT-7 required to be certified by the professionals. My query is that when we hv some qualifications on the workings of any company like mostly in case of section 188 all the companies are showing that the related transaction are at arm length and so section 188 does not apply. but if we hv some qualification or on that or on compliance of any other section then how do we register or mark our qualification? By certifying the form we are certifying that the company has complied with all the compliance.
-
Reply
- Views (1263)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1257)
- Posted By: Rahul chaudhary 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1257)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1257)
- Posted By: Arjun 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1256)
- Posted By: Sonam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1252)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1248)
- Posted By: Viral sanghavi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1248)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1246)
- Posted By: Meenakshi 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1243)
- Posted By: Shubham 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1240)
- Posted By: Vaidyanathan 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1229)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 7 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1225)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1222)
- Posted By: Akhand 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1211)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1211)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1204)
- Posted By: Haryana 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1202)
- Posted By: Manoj jangid 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1198)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1194)
- Posted By: Ketan antani 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1192)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1182)
- Posted By: Sanjay sharma 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1182)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1176)
- Posted By: Latha 6 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1161)
- Posted By: Bunny sehgal 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1153)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1139)
- Posted By: Rajesh agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1136)
- Posted By: Amith jain 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1127)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1124)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1106)
- Posted By: U l basak & co. 10 year(s) ago
|
By virtue of IPO IN 1993-1994 FY some allotment money arrears ( appllication - Rs.5/- allotment money Rs.5/-) @Rs.5 on 49600/-
Read More
By virtue of IPO IN 1993-1994 FY some allotment money arrears ( appllication - Rs.5/- allotment money Rs.5/-) @Rs.5 on 49600/- shares are unpaid by shares and remains as partly paid up shares till today. But due to loss of data company is not having the details of partly paid up share public shareholders, thereby company unable to forfeit.
What is the solution to clean up the balance sheet. If the company is unable to identify the shareholders and call the arrears from them what is the use of keeping that partly paid up shares years together? can't the company make them as fully paid in the interest of shareholders (without forfeiting and without reduction and without depriving the interests of shareholders)?
* total number of fully paid shares re 9432040 Nos.
If the company keeps it for years together how it can decide the voting rights at the time of any corporate actions of such company?
-
Reply
- Views (1105)
- Posted By: Priyadarshini 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1087)
- Posted By: Kavita 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1069)
- Posted By: Priti jaiswal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1041)
- Posted By: Divakaran suresh 9 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1036)
- Posted By: Naresh 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (1025)
- Posted By: Sarada 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (993)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (965)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (954)
- Posted By: Sonam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (918)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (881)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (880)
- Posted By: Sonam 10 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (829)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 8 year(s) ago
|
-
Reply
- Views (813)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 8 year(s) ago
|