Extension of due date for holding AGM for FY ended on 31.03.2020 by three months

Extension of due date for holding AGM for FY ended on 31.03.2020 by three months by MCA (ROC Kanpur) 

A big Relief is given by Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to around 12 lakhs companies by extending the timeline for holding Annual General Meeting till December 31st from September 30th.

Extension of due date for holding AGM for FY ended on 31.03.2020

MCA issued directions to different RoCs to issue orders without filing of formal application and payment of fee. Even applications already filed but not approved or rejected are also covered for this relief.

MCA is extending this timeline due to COVID-19 and Meeting the demand from various associations for extending time to hold AGM. This is for the first time that such relief generally is given to all companies.

Ministry of Corporate Affairs has extended the due date for holding Annual General Meeting (AGM) for the Financial Year ended 31.03.2020 other than the first AGM.

The extension have been given for three months from the due date by which the AGM ought to have been held u/s 96(1) without requiring the companies to file applications for extension in Form GNL-1

Several representations have been given to MCA for the extension of the time for holding AGM as per the provisions of Section 96(1) of the Companies Act 2013.

The extension has been given to the companies under the jurisdiction of ROC Kanpur. Similar orders have also been issued by other Registrar of Companies as under:

List of ROC-wise order issued for AGM Extension

It is expected that acting on MCA direction, similar extensions maybe given by other ROCs across the Country.

The said extension has been granted without the need for filing Form No. GNL-1 and not only all pending applications filed in GNL-1 shall be covered under this order but the applications rejected shall also be covered under this order.

The copy of the order issued by ROC Kanpur is as under:

• Taxes on sales comprising in turnover to be excluded for estimating net profit
• Capital contribution deposited in assessee’s bank not partnership firm – Addition 69A upheld
• Bail granted to a CA accused in a GST evasion of more than 40 crores
• Every provision invoked casts a different onus, quoting wrong section prejudice the assessee
• Liability under MV Act can’t be decided on the grounds of sympathy alone – Supreme Court