Guidelines for Change in Name of Proprietorship Concern/Firm of Company Secretary(ies)
In case an existing proprietary concern/firm of Company Secretary (ies) desires to change its name, the following conditions shall be fulfilled:
(a) An application for change in name of the firm (preferably mentioning its Unique Code Number) shall be submitted along with the Form for giving particulars of Offices and Firms duly filled- in.
(b) All the existing partners of the firm must sign the application and the Form duly filled- in.
(c) In the case of a proprietary firm, an application along with the Form for giving particulars of Offices and Firms (mentioning its Unique Code Number) is to be submitted duly filled-in and signed by the proprietor.
(d) The application for approval of the firm name along with the Form should be sent to the Directorate of Membership, ICSI.
(e) The new proposed name will be approved under the provisions contained in Regulations 169 and 170 of the CS Regulations, 1982. (f) The letter granting approval of a trade / firm name will be sent at the address mentioned in the Form for giving particulars of Offices and Firms.
(g) The Proprietorship concern/firm of Company Secretary (ies) which has requested for change in name, upon approval shall mention “formerly known as (old name)” for a period of one year from the date of approval of the changed name.
----------- Similar Posts: -----------There is no statutory requirement of pre-deposit for stay of demand under Income Tax Act - High Court stayed demand …
Engagement of Company Secretaries (CS) as Young Professionals in the Office of Regional Director (WR), Registrar of Companies, Mumbai and…
Applicability of provisions of Section 115BBE read with Section 69, 69A and 69C in a case arising before Settlement Commission…
Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…
Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…
Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…