Companies Act

Companies Restriction on number of layers Rules 2017 – MCA Notification

Companies Restriction on number of layers Rules 2017-Notification. Companies not allowed more than two layers of subsidiaries. 

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 20th September, 2017

G.S.R. 1176(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to clause (87) of section 2, section 450 read with sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:—

1. Short title and Commencement.—(1) These rules may be called the Companies (Restriction on number of layers) Rules, 2017.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette

2. Restriction on number of layers for certain classes of holding companies.—(1) On and from the date of commencement of these rules, no company, other than a company belonging to a class specified in sub-rule (2), shall have more than two layers of subsidiaries:

Provided that the provisions of this sub-rule shall not affect a company from acquiring a company incorporated outside India with subsidiaries beyond two layers as per the laws of such country:

Provided further that for computing the number of layers under this rule, one layer which consists of one or more wholly owned subsidiary or subsidiaries shall not be taken into account.

(2) The provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following classes of companies, namely:—

(a) a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949);
(b) a non-banking financial company as defined in clause (f) of Section 45-I of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (2 of 1934) which is registered with the Reserve Bank of India and considered as systematically important non-banking financial company by the Reserve Bank of India;
(c) an insurance company being a company which carries on the business of insurance in accordance with provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) and the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority Act, 1999 (41 of 1999);
(d) a Government company referred to in clause (45) of section 2 of the Act.

(3) The provisions of this rule shall not be in derogation of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 186 of the Act.

(4) Every company, other than a company referred to in sub-rule (2), existing on or before the commencement of these rules, which has number of layers of subsidiaries in excess of the layers specified in sub-rule (1) –

(i) shall file, with the Registrar a return in Form CRL-1 disclosing the details specified therein, within a period of one hundred and fifty days from the date of publication of these rules in the Official Gazette;

(ii) shall not, after the date of commencement of these rules, have any additional layer of subsidiaries over and above the layers existing on such date; and

(iii) shall not, in case one or more layers are reduced by it subsequent to the commencement of these rules, have the number of layers beyond the number of layers it has after such reduction or maximum layers allowed in subrule (1), whichever is more.

(5) If any company contravenes any provision of these rules the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees and where the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to one thousand rupees for every day after the first during which such contravention continues.

Annexure
Form CRL-1
Return regarding number of layers
(see clause (i) of sub-rule (4)of Rule 2)

1. (a) Name of the company: _______________
(b) CIN of the company: _______________

2. Number of layers of subsidiaries as on the date of commencement of these rules _____

3. Layer wise details of subsidiary companies

…..

…..

[F. No. 01/13/2013 CL-V (Vol.III)]
AMARDEEP SINGH BHATIA, Jt. Secy.

Share

Recent Posts

  • Government

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App not disproportionate – Delhi High Court

Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA

High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash not owner who came up to own it

Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…

3 days ago
  • RTI

Lokayukta Police not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005 – SC

Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation  and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST

Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…

1 week ago
  • ICAI

CA Misconduct – Order quashed as judgment not passed by same members who heard arguments.

CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…

1 week ago