Skip to main content

MCA notifies 183 new sections of Companies Act 2013 in Phase IV

 1) The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has notified 183 new sections of the Companies Act 2013 and some sub- sections of 13 sections which were already notified by notification dated 12th September 2013 and remaining schedule, in the fourth phase today, by way of notification dated 26th March 2014.

2) These sections have been notified to come into effect from 1st April 2014.

3) With the notification of these sections, now a total of 283 sections of the new Act stand notified.

4) With the notification of aforesaid sections, it can be assumed that relevant rules will also be notified shortly as most of them are dependent on rules.

5) The sections remaining to be notified are related to National Financial Reporting Authority, Investor and Education Protection Fund, Compromise and arrangement, oppression and mismanagement, winding up, sick companies ,special courts, national company law tribunal. Majority of these sections are not notified due to pending case in Supreme court with respect to the National Company Law Tribunal.

Status as on date:  

Total Section
Total Sections notified till date
Nos. of Section pending notification
470
283
187


The list of sections notified under Phase III along with title is given below:  

Chapter 1 - Preliminary

Section 2 – Definitions

Clause (2) - Accounting Standards
Clause (7) - Auditing Standards
Clause (13) - Books of Accounts
Clause (31) - Deposits
Clause (41) - Financial year
Clause (42) - Foreign company
Clause (47) - Independent Director
Clause (48) - Indian Depository Receipt
Clause (62) - One Person Company
Clause (83) - Serious Fraud Investigation Office
Clause (85) - Small Company
Explanation (d) of clause (87)

 Article referred: http://www.caclubindia.com/forum/mca-notifies-183-new-sections-of-companies-act-2013-286567.asp#.UzPegfmSzl8

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more