Companies Act

Individuals with duplicate-multiple DINs can retain only Oldest DIN, Later ones have to be surrendered

Individuals with duplicate-multiple DINs can retain only Oldest DIN. Later DINs have to be surrendered.

MCA has issued an advisory in respect of DIN Surrender.

It has been stated that an individual who is in possession of Duplicate/Multiple Director Identification Numbers (DINs), can retain the Oldest DIN only. DINs obtained later have to be surrendered.

Further it has been stated that DIN once associated is NOT eligible for surrender.

MCA is conducting KYC of all Directors of all companies through a new eform viz. DIR-3 KYC for every Director who has been allotted DIN on or before 31st March, 2018 and whose DIN is in ‘Approved’ status. Such directors are mandatorily required to file form DIR-3 KYC on or before 15th Sep, 2018

In 2014, MCA acknowledged that in MCA database, there were  7135 individuals holding multiple Director Identification Numbers (DINs) dating back to the period prior to June, 2011 when validation of application for DIN with the Income Tax PAN data was made compulsory.

Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013 prohibits obtaining or possessing duplicate Director Identification Numbers. Section 159 of the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes punishment for holding duplicate DIN.

The cancellation or surrender procedure has been prescribed in Rule 11 of  the Companies (Appointment and Qualification of Directors) Rules, 2014.

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without reference to DVO – ITAT

AO not justified in rejecting registered valuer’s report without making a reference to the DVO - ITAT In a recent…

4 days ago
  • FCRA

FCRA specifies list of 105 purposes to be selected for which registration is applied

FCRA specifies list of purposes to be selected for which registration is applied.  The Ministry of Home Affairs has notified…

1 week ago
  • Income Tax

Withholding tax u/s 40(a)(i) not required on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company

Assessee was not liable to withhold tax at source u/s 40(a)(i) on cost-to-cost reimbursement made to parent company In a…

1 week ago
  • 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 week 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…

1 week 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…

2 weeks ago