ANNUAL RETURN UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013

All types of company, whether having share capital or mandatorily required to file the annual return. Annual return shall contain the particulars as they stood on the close of the finacial year and not on the date of the Annual General Meeting.

Signing of Annual return:

Annual return is required to be signed by one director along with company secretary and where there is no company secretary by a company secretary in whole time practice.
In relation to one person company and small company, the annual return shall be signed by the company secretary or where there is no company secretary, by the director of the company.

Certification:

In case of the listed company ( irrespective of paid up share capital or turnover) or by a company having paid up share capital of 10 crore rupees or more or turnover of 50 crore rupees or more, the annual return shall be certified by a company secretary in practice and certificate shall be in Form MGT 8. Thus, certification of annual return applies to both unlisted companies as well as listed company.

 Documents to be checked:

  1. Statutory registers maintained as per Companies Act 2013
  2. Minutes maintained as per companies Act 2013
Filing of annual return with registrar:

Every company shall file with the registrar a copy of the annual return in MGT 7 within 60 days from the date on which the Annual General Meeting is held or where no Annual General Meeting is held in any year within 60 days from the date on which Annual General Meeting should have been held together with the statement specifying the reason for not holding Annual General Meeting with such fees for additional fees as we prescribe.


Comments

Post a Comment

Please do not enter any spam link in the comment box

RECENT POSTS

AYODHYA JUDGEMENT-SUMMARY

Image
Ayodhya judgement resolved the long pending tussle  between Hindus and Muslims. Resolving this religious fight was not an easy task for Hon'ble Supreme Court (" SC "). Drawing  evidences from the muted history were the most herculean task for the SC, though observations of High Court was very much helpful for the SC to end this religious fight which started from 1856-7 . Writing crux of this judgement was not any easy task for me as well because this judgement spreaded over 1045 pages   and discussed numerous issues  and when I was reading and making summary, the problem before me was what to include or what not? But to reduce this judgement into readable strength, I mainly focused on core question which was the bone of contention.  Further, for the sake of authenticity I have written page numbers of this judgement against paragraphs ( wherever required ) so that you can cross-verify or read in detail if you feel so. The bone of contention before the SC was  " Whethe
Read more

PROCEDURE UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013

COMPANY INCORPORATION REGISTRATION OF PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY CHANGE OF NAME OF COMPANY FUNDS RAISING/ISSUE OF SECURITIES PRIVATE PLACEMENT OF SECURITIES AUDITOR APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS LOAN & INVESTMENT LOAN & INVESTMENT BY COMPANY REMUNERATION MANAGERIAL REMUNERATION IN CASE OF INADEQUATE PROFIT OR LOSS
Read more

RED TAPISM CASES IN INDIA: IDEA-VODAFONE MERGER-LAWDECODED-CS ROHIT KUMAR

Image
Indian Government has very good track record of killing our own country growth by taking stupid decisions. Our bureaucrats have taken oath not to learn from their past bad decisions. In this article, we will discuss how our Indian bureaucracy efforts are anti-growth. HOW STORY OF RED TAPISM STARTED? Idea-Vodafone merger was quite famous and it was said that this would help to boost Vodafone earning which have been showing very dismal picture. To go through this merger process, this deal had to navigate various regulatory windows and Department of Telecommunication (DoT) was one them. Such kind of departmental approval is required in big transactions. Our government departments are well equipped to squeeze, and they did in this case as well. DoT approved the merger but put one rider that merged entity would pay $1.1 Billion to Government in the name of Spectrum charges which was the source of the dispute between government & Idea-Voda (merged entity) to meet their fiscal targets. A
Read more

DRAFT VALUERS BILL 2020- A NEW ERA OF VALUATION-LAW DECODED-BY CS ROHIT KUMAR

Image
WHY NEED ARISE OF NEW PROFESSIONAL, A VALUER? As of today, there is neither standardised formula for valuing assets of corporates nor proper regulatory framework  governing the valuation professionals which are very important to unlock the real value of assets. Currently, there is an ad-hoc framework for valuation professionals and they are basically governed under Companies Act, and IBBI is empowered to implement regime of registered valuers.  For long, such valuation services are provided by CA & Merchant Bankers under various legislations such as Companies Act, Income Tax Laws, SEBI, FEMA etc in a non-standardised manner involving high degree of subjectivity of valuer which most of the time resulted into mis-matching between reality & excel figures .  Moreover, a valuation can not be a part-time services for CS or CA. This requires altogether different set of skills which are beyond Accounting, Tax, and Excel Sheets. Therefore, the panel headed by IBBI Chairperson M S Sahoo,
Read more

CANCELLATION OF SALE DEED DUE TO NOT HOLDING BOARD MEETING -CASE LAW-DECODED-CS ROHIT KUMAR

Image
M ost people consider Boardroom  a picnic spot, and attending or holding board meeting is considered as a time-pass compliance process by most of the listed and unlisted companies. But, let me tell you board meeting minutes is one of the most important evidences of company's proper functioning, and the Courts also rely on papers of board meeting be it directors notice, attendance register, minutes etc. NOT HOLDING BOARD MEETING COULD RESULT INTO LAND DEAL CANCELLATION This case happened when NCLT declared the sale to be null and void in oppression & mismanagement case [ Elaine Info Solution Pvt. Ltd. v. Avenues India Pvt. Ltd. & others ] and the same uphold by NCLAT . FACTS OF THE CASE: Appellant : Elain Info Sol Pvt Ltd. ( A1 ) Respondents : J&A Avenues India Pvt Ltd ( R1 ) | Mrs. Vishnumolaka Govardhanamma ( R2 ) | Mr. V. Lakshmi Chenuchu Venkata ( R3 ) | Sub-registrar ( R4 ) R2 and R3 are the only directors of R1, and R2 is mother of R3. R3 held 50% shareholding of
Read more