Sanction for prosecution accorded in 366 cases in violation of CSR provisions

The Union Minister of State for Finance & Corporate Affairs, in a written reply to a question in Lok Sabha stated that whenever any violation of CSR provisions is reported, action against such non-compliant Companies are initiated as per provisions of the Act after due examination of records and following due process of law.

He said that all CSR related defaults are compoundable. So far, sanction for prosecution has been accorded in 366 cases. Of these, 148 applications for compounding have been made and 75 cases have been compounded.

Giving more information, the Minister stated that as per input provided by the Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs (IICA), following studies have been conducted:

• Formative research on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) implementation under Section 135 of Companies Act, 2013: Coverage and emerging issues; and

• Study on CSR expenditure in 100 tribal and backwards districts of the country.

Giving more details, the Minister further said that the CSR is a Board driven process and the Board of the company is empowered to plan, decide, execute and monitor the CSR activities of the company based on the recommendation of its CSR Committee. The CSR architecture is disclosure based and CSR mandated companies are required to file details of CSR expenditure annually in MCA21 registry.

The existing legal provisions such as mandatory disclosures, accountability of the CSR Committee and the Board, provisions for statutory audit of accounts of the company etc. provide sufficient safeguards.

• In absence of mala fide intention bank should not be treated as assessee in default
• Whether bank account was fraudulently open in the name of assessee is question of fact
• SBI Concurrent Auditor Empanelment of Chartered Accountant Firms 2024-25. Last date 18.05.2024
• Change in the constitution of Appellate Authority for CAs CSs and Cost Accountants
• Trade Tax refund withheld beyond stipulated period & adjusted from demand unjustified – SC