Skip to main content

Clarification by MCA on deposits from members, directors and relatives into private companies

General Ctrcular No. O5/2O15
F. No. 1/8/2013-CL-V
Government of India
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhavan,
Dr R.P. Road, New Delhi.
Datedt 30th Match, 2015

................
Stakeholders have sought clarifications as to whether amounts received
by private companies from their members, directors or their relatives prior to
1st April, 2014 shall be considered as deposits under the Companies Act, 2013
as such amounts were not treated as 'deposits' under section 58A of the
Companies Act, 1956 and rules made thereunder.

2.The matter has been examined in consultation with RBI and it is
clarified that such amounts received by private companies prior to 16t April,
2Ol4 shall not be treated as 'deposits' under the Companies Act,2013 and
Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 subject to the condition that
relevant private company shall disclose, in the notes to its financial statement
for the financial year commencing on or after lsi April, 2014 the figure of such
amounts and the accounting head in which such amounts have been shown in
the fi nancial statement.
3. Any renewal or acceptance of fresh deposits on or aiter 1st April, 2014
shall, however, be in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 20 13
and rules made thereunder.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more