|
Q & A
Question Sorting on
Total Questions510
- Views (1330)
- Posted By: Pr.ramanathan 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1632)
- Posted By: Sachin 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1816)
- Posted By: Surya mallampally 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1830)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 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.
- Views (1635)
- Posted By: Girish sanghavi 9 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,
- Views (1439)
- Posted By: Dharmesh 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.
- Views (1840)
- Posted By: Pooja sehgal mehtani 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1735)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1740)
- Posted By: Dipika 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1841)
- Posted By: Ghanshyam saraf 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1989)
- Posted By: Jasvir walia 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1583)
- Posted By: Rahul 9 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??
- Views (1891)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2308)
- Posted By: Jagdish singh rathore 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2054)
- Posted By: Himanshu 12 year(s) ago
|
- Views (4631)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1866)
- Posted By: Shiv kumar agarwal 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2105)
- Posted By: Deepak 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2169)
- Posted By: Pradeep arora 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2539)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1783)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1695)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1705)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1756)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1656)
- Posted By: Girish sanghavi 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1740)
- Posted By: Sanket 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (4425)
- Posted By: Mahesh bawge 7 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2170)
- Posted By: Barkha 7 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2291)
- Posted By: Barkha 7 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1803)
- Posted By: T.madhusudhanan 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1880)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1731)
- Posted By: Manish sharma 11 year(s) ago
|
|
|
|
- Views (2115)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (4068)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2202)
- Posted By: Amruta tendulkar 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1661)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2930)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3132)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1543)
- Posted By: Abhinaya 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2127)
- Posted By: Shweta agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1424)
- Posted By: Ankita 8 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2454)
- Posted By: Ravi 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1667)
- Posted By: Mohit seth 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1662)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1801)
- Posted By: Milind 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1805)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2478)
- Posted By: Rohit 6 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1241)
- Posted By: Shubham 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1531)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1845)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1760)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1640)
- Posted By: Deepak gulati 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2141)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3298)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1632)
- Posted By: Akjain 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1867)
- Posted By: Sanjay 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1692)
- Posted By: Sachin 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2157)
- Posted By: Sachin 6 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (8404)
- Posted By: Vishal arora 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1794)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (1319)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1793)
- Posted By: Meenu 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2035)
- Posted By: Ravinder 6 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (1819)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2814)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1812)
- Posted By: Unnikrishnan p s 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2187)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1604)
- Posted By: Rishav saraf 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 ?
- Views (2306)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 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 ?
- Views (2416)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2630)
- Posted By: Amarnath jha 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1882)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1785)
- Posted By: Ca vinod goyal 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
- Views (1897)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1966)
- Posted By: Jitendra lekhwani 8 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1805)
- Posted By: Ravi 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1616)
- Posted By: Nidhi goel 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1500)
- Posted By: Kamlesh g pandya 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2607)
- Posted By: Abhishek dad 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (5440)
- Posted By: Vivek doshi & co 10 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 ?
- Views (2693)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (1489)
- Posted By: Radhey 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2559)
- Posted By: Sanjeev 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1703)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1605)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (4996)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 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
- Views (1197)
- Posted By: Mandar 8 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1513)
- Posted By: Deepthi 8 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
- Views (1755)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 12 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1524)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1726)
- Posted By: Arpitha 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (4304)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1692)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1438)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1885)
- Posted By: Pradeep arora 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1302)
- Posted By: Anita 11 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.
- Views (1293)
- Posted By: Anita 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??
- Views (1784)
- Posted By: Aastha khanna 7 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1315)
- Posted By: Sandeep gandhi 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1870)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1601)
- Posted By: Arpita 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1687)
- Posted By: Cs ram thakkar 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1663)
- Posted By: Sunil kumar agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2005)
- Posted By: Joshua dsouza 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1594)
- Posted By: Surendra dalvi 6 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1754)
- Posted By: Surendra dalvi 6 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.
- Views (23168)
- Posted By: Amish 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1732)
- Posted By: Pradeep kumar jain 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2148)
- Posted By: Suniti 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1524)
- Posted By: Sanket 8 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1559)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2500)
- Posted By: Ram 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3216)
- Posted By: Mradul gaur 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1345)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1715)
- Posted By: Anshita agarwal 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1958)
- Posted By: Manoj kumar koyalkar 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2389)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2689)
- Posted By: Vithal kumar pingali 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1636)
- Posted By: Shubha 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1425)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 7 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1535)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1268)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1409)
- Posted By: Kamal 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1278)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (1674)
- Posted By: Sachin 6 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1089)
- Posted By: Chandranil belvalkar 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1447)
- Posted By: B.basu 8 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2008)
- Posted By: Gagandeep singh 7 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1300)
- Posted By: Suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2043)
- Posted By: Meenakshi sharma 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1585)
- Posted By: Radha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2659)
- Posted By: Ravi 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.
- Views (10329)
- Posted By: Shiv kumaran 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1647)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 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.
- Views (1602)
- Posted By: Pradeep chugh 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2126)
- Posted By: Sreenivas babu 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1379)
- Posted By: Yuga 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1534)
- Posted By: Jagruti 11 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (1830)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1764)
- Posted By: Bandaru 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1818)
- Posted By: Vibha 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.
- Views (2426)
- Posted By: Stuti 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3373)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2183)
- Posted By: Aakanksha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2001)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1579)
- Posted By: Sohrabh jindal 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2229)
- Posted By: Dipti shah 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3330)
- Posted By: Nilesh patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (5308)
- Posted By: Chirag shah 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1629)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1540)
- Posted By: Mahender 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2758)
- Posted By: Gurpreet kaur 7 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1798)
- Posted By: Mehak 7 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.
- Views (1617)
- Posted By: Chirag shah 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2190)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (3218)
- Posted By: Jeeravla&co 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1150)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1099)
- Posted By: Mahesh 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1891)
- Posted By: Ravi 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1460)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1308)
- Posted By: Sanket 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2406)
- Posted By: Akjain 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1789)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1109)
- Posted By: Radha 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1500)
- Posted By: Amit popli 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1528)
- Posted By: Nava bharat ventures limited 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1969)
- Posted By: S.m.a.millath 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1613)
- Posted By: Kunal 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1378)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1737)
- Posted By: Sandhya 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1600)
- Posted By: Mahesh shenoy 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1476)
- Posted By: Amit popli 11 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.
- Views (1535)
- Posted By: Satish 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1451)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 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.
- Views (1503)
- Posted By: Soumendra das 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1541)
- Posted By: K k arora 10 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.
- Views (1619)
- Posted By: Akila 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1749)
- Posted By: Anamika 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1480)
- Posted By: Deepak gulati 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1881)
- Posted By: Vikas kataria 7 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2369)
- Posted By: Brajesh r. agrawal 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1418)
- Posted By: Ansari 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1357)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2181)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (964)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 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 ?
- Views (1975)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1697)
- Posted By: Neha goni 7 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.
- Views (1677)
- Posted By: Aishwarya 6 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (5336)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 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
- Views (1710)
- Posted By: Jyoti aggarwal 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1501)
- Posted By: Ankit 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1321)
- Posted By: V. maslekar 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2338)
- Posted By: A k jain 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (4744)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1439)
- Posted By: Gagandeep singh 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1875)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1390)
- Posted By: Anantha krishnan 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1235)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1914)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1571)
- Posted By: Sampath 12 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1477)
- Posted By: Venkatesan 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1483)
- Posted By: Anamika 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1594)
- Posted By: K vasantha kumar 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1397)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1756)
- Posted By: Tci chemicals india pvt ltd 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1939)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2031)
- Posted By: Aakanksha 10 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (3420)
- Posted By: Latha 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2016)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1891)
- Posted By: Suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1595)
- Posted By: Mukund govindharajan 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1957)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1384)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1670)
- Posted By: Rajesh chopra 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2316)
- Posted By: Vinu thomas 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1635)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1645)
- Posted By: Sunu manuel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1973)
- Posted By: Manohar balwani 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1525)
- Posted By: Suman jain 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1442)
- Posted By: Alok srivastava 11 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?
- Views (1671)
- Posted By: Padmavathi k 12 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2166)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1489)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2506)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1848)
- Posted By: Abhinaya 7 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1428)
- Posted By: Nirmal bang financial services private limited 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1780)
- Posted By: Focal coporate 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1245)
- Posted By: Meenakshi 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2628)
- Posted By: Aarti rathod 8 year(s) ago
|
|
|
|
|
- Views (2661)
- Posted By: Vikas gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2998)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2383)
- Posted By: Latha 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1973)
- Posted By: Suresh 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1984)
- Posted By: Anita 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1959)
- Posted By: Anita 11 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 ?
- Views (2597)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1957)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1707)
- Posted By: Ujwal accounts 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1720)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2190)
- Posted By: Chandr sekhar 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1658)
- Posted By: Manouj agrawaal, fca, partner 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2138)
- Posted By: Garima 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1762)
- Posted By: Saravanan 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1530)
- Posted By: Reena 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1563)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2293)
- Posted By: Kishor 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1665)
- Posted By: Khushboo 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1991)
- Posted By: Ravi 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2575)
- Posted By: Rajapanduranga 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1901)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 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)
- Views (1913)
- Posted By: Revati sathe 10 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
- Views (1930)
- Posted By: Balachandran 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2035)
- Posted By: Pooja garg 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1239)
- Posted By: Vibha 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1691)
- Posted By: Megha 8 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.
- Views (1498)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2153)
- Posted By: T.r.chadha & co. 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2657)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1997)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1907)
- Posted By: Anita 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1631)
- Posted By: Arun kumar 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1495)
- Posted By: Sandeep gandhi 9 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (4571)
- Posted By: Vishwas panjiar 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2013)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3385)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2166)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3665)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2244)
- Posted By: Pradeep chugh 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1816)
- Posted By: Radha 10 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.
- Views (1828)
- Posted By: Radha 10 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
- Views (2220)
- Posted By: Comsec 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (5827)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2791)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2820)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1757)
- Posted By: Amol kshirsagar 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (3220)
- Posted By: Vivek vijay 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2267)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (5856)
- Posted By: Hemal 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1808)
- Posted By: Rishav saraf 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1134)
- Posted By: Amith jain 8 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1519)
- Posted By: Jaya bhatia 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1580)
- Posted By: Anil 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1986)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1866)
- Posted By: Anant jajodia 10 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (1022)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1290)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1530)
- Posted By: Sanjay 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1430)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1798)
- Posted By: Govind toshniwal 7 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1597)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2072)
- Posted By: Namita 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1863)
- Posted By: Sandhya 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1995)
- Posted By: Prekshi gupta 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2976)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 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?.
- Views (2190)
- Posted By: Nilesh patel 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2716)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2569)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 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?
- Views (1563)
- Posted By: Amardeepduggal 8 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2001)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 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/-
- Views (2988)
- Posted By: Vasant patel 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1327)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1655)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1500)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1467)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1579)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1570)
- Posted By: Priyanka 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2039)
- Posted By: Purushottam lal agrawal 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1719)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1730)
- Posted By: Kanika gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2096)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (8194)
- Posted By: Sachin 6 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1686)
- Posted By: Kamdhenu ispat limited 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2457)
- Posted By: Prerna kapoor 9 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1462)
- Posted By: Arun rajabhau joshi 8 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1535)
- Posted By: Shylendrakumar t r 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?
- Views (1497)
- Posted By: Anita 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.
- Views (1483)
- Posted By: Unnikrishnan p s 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1530)
- Posted By: Dhavneesh gupta 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1228)
- Posted By: Mookambika r 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?
- Views (1691)
- Posted By: Latha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1862)
- Posted By: Anil 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2698)
- Posted By: Himanshu 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (2816)
- Posted By: Himanshu 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.
- Views (1357)
- Posted By: Sanam singh 9 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.
- Views (1328)
- Posted By: Sanam singh 9 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.
- Views (1294)
- Posted By: Sanam singh 9 year(s) ago
|
|
|
- Views (1548)
- Posted By: Divya 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1473)
- Posted By: Sanjeev 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1815)
- Posted By: V. ramkumar 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1417)
- Posted By: Ulka kulkarni 12 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1651)
- Posted By: Ravi 11 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1422)
- Posted By: Sanjay 8 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (2092)
- Posted By: Akansha 11 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1527)
- Posted By: Harpreet 10 year(s) ago
|
|
- Views (1998)
- Posted By: Neha mittal 10 year(s) ago
|
- Views (1625)
- Posted By: V s khanna 9 year(s) ago
|
|
Recently Active Member
Dhvani Dhvani & Associates
About Q&A
Q & A is a unique platform to get your answers. You can create questions by topics or sections for easy identification of your query . You get various alerts to keep you connected and can also search your query.
So keep posting and stay connected
|
|