ROCs has removed/struck off names of 226166 companies which were not filing returns for a continuous period of two or more financial years and prima facie were not conducting any business or in operation
The Government has initiated campaign against black money, wilful defaulters and erring directors. There are a number of registered companies that are facing action from authorities after the demonetisation.
Prior to demonetisation, 16,08,637 number of companies stood registered. After demonetisation, the Registrars of Companies (RoCs) has identified 2.97 lakh companies during 2017-18 which were not filing their Financial Statements or Annual Returns for a continuous period of two or more financial years and, prima facie, were not conducting any business or in operation. Out of such identified companies, ROCs has removed the names of 2,26,166 companies as on 19.12.2017 from the register of companies by following the due procedure under Section 248 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Further, based on information received from various banks, the Central Government has ordered investigations into the true ownership of 68 such companies u/s 216 read with Section 210(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, which have deposited Rs. 25 crores or more in Bank Accounts and withdrew in an exceptional manner post demonetisation. The investigations are underway.
As of now, the Government has identified 3,09,619 directors as disqualified u/s 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013 pertaining to companies for which Financial Statements or Annual Returns have not been filed for a continuous period of three Financial Years.
This information was given by Minister of State for Corporate Affairs in written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.
Source: PIB
Assessing Officer had taken a reasonable stand that 25 kg written in WhatsApp chat/text message was 25 lakh - ITAT…
Shareholders are only owners of the shares of the company therefore, income from properties earned by the company cannot be…
When approval for reassessment was granted by unauthorised authority, such jurisdictional error cannot be shielded by the law of limitation…
ITAT on presumption of bogus purchases ought to have remanded case to AO to reconsider the whole matter instead of…
Where proceedings u/s 153C are barred by limitation, AO can not reopen the case invoking section 148 and 148A of…
Corporate guarantees executed by the corporate debtor constitute “financial debt” under IBC and banks to be recognized as financial creditors…