Loading...

Tax News & Updates

Stay informed with the latest in tax and compliance

Share this page:
Due Date Form / Return Department Description Days Left
15 Apr 2026 Form no. 3BB
Mar, 26
Income Tax 1d
15 Apr 2026 Form No. 15CC
Jan - Mar, 26
Income Tax 1d
15 Apr 2026 PF & ESIC
Mar, 26
PF & ESIC 1d
18 Apr 2026 CMP-08
Jan - Mar, 26
GST Quarterly Challan-cum-statement to be furnished by composition dealers 4d
20 Apr 2026 GSTR-5A
Mar, 26
GST Summary of outward taxable supplies and tax payable by a person supplying OIDAR services 6d
20 Apr 2026 GSTR-3B
Mar, 26
GST 6d
22 Apr 2026 GSTR-3B QRMP1
Jan - Mar, 26
GST 8d
24 Apr 2026 GSTR-3B QRMP2
Jan - Mar, 26
GST 10d
25 Apr 2026 ITC-04
Oct 25 - Mar, 26
GST 11d
25 Apr 2026 ITC-04
FY 25-26
GST 11d
30 Apr 2026 Form 24G
Mar, 26
Income Tax 16d
30 Apr 2026 Form 15G/15H
Jan - Mar, 26
Income Tax Due date for furnishing of Form 15G/15H declarations received during the quarter ending March, 2026 16d
30 Apr 2026 TDS Pay- 194-IA, 194-IB, 194M, 194S
Mar, 26
Income Tax 16d
30 Apr 2026 TDS Payment
Mar, 26
Income Tax 16d
30 Apr 2026 TDS Payment - AO permitted
Jan - Mar, 26
Income Tax 16d

MCA Update: Proposed Incorporation Rules Amendment 2026

COMPANY LAW
MCA Issued Amendment In Companies Incorporation Rules 2014 April082026 .pdf
Share:

DIR-3 KYC: When Will You Need to File- (Illustrations Explained)

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Update: DIR-3 KYC Now Once in 3 Years from 31 Mar 2026

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Issues Advisory on Company & LLP Name Reservation

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Reorganises ROC Jurisdictions from 16 February 2026

COMPANY LAW
Share:

Last Opportunity Before Strict ROC Action

COMPANY LAW
Share:

Who Cannot Avail CCFS-2026?

COMPANY LAW
Share:

Penalty Immunity Window Under CCFS-2026

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Launches Companies Compliance Facilitation Scheme (CCFS-2026) for Pending Filings Relief.

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Portal Update: VPD Now Available During Business Hours

The MCA portal has extended the View Public Documents (VPD) service to regular business hours. Users can now download all available public documents during the day itself, without waiting till after 6:30 PM. This change will help professionals plan MCA-related work more efficiently.

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Clarification: 7 Days Allowed for Payment

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Updates Small Company Status in Master Data

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Amends Director KYC Rules

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Grants Fee Waiver and Time Extension for Annual Filings (FY 2024-25)

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Notifies Revised Small Company Definition (G S R 880(E))

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Extends Due Date for Filing Financial Statements & Annual Returns to 31st Dec 2025

COMPANY LAW
Share:

DIR-3 KYC Filing Deadline Extended to 31st October 2025 Without Late Fee

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Extends Due Date for DIR-3 KYC Filing Without Fee till 15th October 2025

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Issues Advisory on Avoiding Rejections in LLP Incorporation (FiLLiP) Applications

COMPANY LAW
Share:

MCA Allows Holding of AGM/EGM via VC or OAVM Till Further Orders - Clarification Issued

COMPANY LAW
Share:

Private complaint barred for Sec 448 offence as it is covered under Sec 447; Companies Act proceedings quashed

PartiesYerram Vijay Kumar v. State of Telangana
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 147 of 2026
Decision
The SC held that Section 448 is intrinsically linked to Section 447 (fraud) and therefore falls within offences covered u/s 447, attracting the bar u/s 212(6) against cognizance on a private complaint. Accordingly, cognisance taken by the Special Court for offences u/s 448 and 451 of the Companies Act was held invalid, and those proceedings were quashed. The Court, however, allowed the IPC offences to continue and directed the transfer of the complaint to the competent criminal court for trial.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Winding-Up Proceedings Transferred to NCLT as No Irreversible Steps Taken

PartiesM. S. Glass Industries Ltd. v. O/L, HCOS
CourtHIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
CitationAPO/36/2022 CP/1127/2014 IA No. ACO/2/2022
Decision
The Court relied on Action Ispat (SC) and held that winding-up matters must be transferred to NCLT unless they have reached an irreversible stage. Since the companys assets had not been put up for sale, nothing irreversible had occurred, making transfer appropriate. The Court ordered the immediate transfer of the winding-up proceedings to NCLT, Kolkata, while granting the appellant liberty to pursue its claim before the appropriate authority.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Guarantors Cannot Use Company Court to Block Recovery After Completion of Winding Up

PartiesPC Jhalani v. Jhalani Tools (India) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO. APP. No. 3 of 2024 CM APP. Nos. 8668 & 8670 of 2024
Decision
Once liquidation is completed, the Company Court cannot be used as a forum to shield guarantors from bank recovery actions. Based on Lalit Kumar Jain v. Union of India, discharge of the company does not discharge personal guarantors; hence, guarantors cannot invoke the Company Court jurisdiction.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Winding-Up Petition Transferred from High Court to NCLT for Effective Adjudication

PartiesAlok Kumar Mishra v. Vigneshwara Developwell (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO. PET. 740 OF 2014 CO.APPL. Nos. 381, 1239, 1317, 1447, 1522 OF 2017 and 511 OF 2018
Decision
The Court held that, to ensure effective adjudication of all similarly situated parties, the present petition should also be transferred to the NCLT. Relying on Section 434(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013, the HC directed the transfer of the petition. All pending applications in the HC were closed, and the parties were allowed to proceed before the NCLT.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

No Preferential Payment to Appellants in Winding-Up Proceedings - Equal Treatment of Creditors Under Company Law

PartiesMrs. Usha Jain v. Vigneshwara Developwell (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.APP. 30 of 2024
Decision
Appellants are not entitled to preferential payment and must stand with other creditors u/s 529. Their petition does not grant precedence, and claims of ill advice are irrelevant as the winding-up process applies equally. Appellants can file claims with the Official Liquidator, who will process disbursement as per law.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

HC Quashes Lookout Circular Against Petitioner Not Directly Involved in SFIO Investigation

PartiesSiddhartha Sudhir Moravekar v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 523 OF 2023
Decision
The court found no evidence that the petitioner failed to cooperate with the investigation and noted that he was not a flight risk. The court highlighted that issuing a LOC indefinitely violates the petitioners right to personal liberty and free movement under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court quashed the LOC issued by the SFIO.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Court Upholds Travel Restrictions for Director Under SFIO Investigation

PartiesVijay Singh Dogra v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCRL.M.C. 4181/2024
Decision
he court found that the petitioners children could travel to India to meet him, making the trip to Dubai unnecessary. The petitioner did not provide sufficient reasons or justification for his claimed necessity to be present for his sons admission to New York. The court concluded that the LOC was justified due to the petitioners role in the investigation and dismissed his application, upholding the restrictions on his travel.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

HC Confirms NCLTs Authority to Examine Forgery Allegations in Shareholding and Directorship Dispute

PartiesSmt. Kavita Arora v. Leptons Designtek (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.A(SB) 4/2016
Decision
The court held that the NCLT has jurisdiction to examine allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents under Rule 43 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, which allows for forensic examination. The case was remanded to the NCLT for further adjudication, with instructions to investigate the allegations, including a forensic examination of the disputed documents. The court allowed the appellants appeal, overturning the CLBs dismissal and affirming that the NCLT is empowered to handle the case.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Penalty Imposed on Hermes I Tickets by Registrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai for Statutory Non-Compliance

PartiesHermes I Tickets
CourtRegistrar of Companies (ROC), Chennai, Tamil Nadu Facts: Hermes I Tickets was penalized by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) for non-compliance with the statutory requirements under the Companies Act. The specific non-compliance included failing to maintain accurate statutory registers and records, and failing to file the necessary returns with the ROC. Penalty Amount: Rs. 3 Lakhs Decision: The ROC imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 Lakhs on Hermes I Tickets for its failure to comply with the statutory requirements. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining accurate records and timely compliance with statutory requirements to avoid such penalties.
Decision
The ROC imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 Lakhs on Hermes I Tickets for its failure to comply with the statutory requirements. The decision underscores the importance of maintaining accurate records and timely compliance with statutory requirements to avoid such penalties.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

HC Dismisses Writ Petition for Company Restoration, Directs Petitioner to Approach NCLT

PartiesKarmyogi Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 96 of 2012
Decision
The court held that the appropriate forum for addressing the petitioners grievances is the NCLT as per Chapter XXVII of the Companies Act, 2013. The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the HC. The court directed the petitioner to approach the NCLT to redress its grievances, indicating that the provisions under the old and new Companies Acts are consistent and that the new Act provides a detailed procedure for such cases.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Credit Information Disputes: Madras HCs on Borrower Rights and Responsibilities

PartiesV. Ramalingam v. ReserveBank of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF MADRAS
CitationW.P. NO. 13954 OF 2020 WMP.NO. 4249 OF 2021
Decision
The court noted that effective remedies were available and would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case did not meet the criteria for interference under Article 226, such as enforcement of fundamental rights or violation of natural justice. The court dismissed the petition, stating it was devoid of merits, and found no need to appoint an arbitrator as the grievance was resolved through other legal avenues.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Challenging Jurisdiction: HDFC Banks Victory Against Registrars Proceedings

PartiesHDFC Bank Ltd. v. Registrar of Companies. Mum.
CourtHIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 3442 OF 2018
Decision
The court found that the impugned order did not establish a prima facie case showing how the requested information related to fraudulent or unlawful business activities. The Registrar did not comply with the procedural requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of Section 206 before issuing the order under subsection (4). The court quashed the impugned order, deeming it without jurisdiction and unsustainable.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Delhi HC dismisses writ petition seeking an investigation into company affairs due to jurisdictional constraints.

PartiesMeghana T.V. v. Union of India
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationW.P.(C) NO. 6726 OF 2024
Decision
The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the entire cause of action occurred in Karnataka and VSPLs primary operations were based there. The court found that the presence of VSPLs head office in Delhi was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, as the main issues and impacts were localized to Karnataka. The court dismissed the petition due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the Karnataka HC for appropriate relief.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Court Concludes Liquidation, Orders Dissolution of Asset-Less Company

PartiesMitmilan Enterprises v. Ravindra Dyechem (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 199 OF 1996
Decision
The court determined that the liquidation process had been fully carried out, with no remaining assets or funds, and no purpose would be served by keeping the proceedings open. Citing the SCs decision in Meghal Homes (P) Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Ors and Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, the court found it appropriate to dissolve the company since the OL could not proceed further due to lack of assets or funds. The court ordered the dissolution of Ravindra Dyechem (P.) Ltd. discharged the OL from his duties.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

HC Rejects Winding-Up Plea, Advises Petitioner to Take Overcharging Dispute to Commercial Court

PartiesNewage Scaffoldings (P.) Ltd. v. Paramount Infraventure (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 303 OF 2014 CO.APPL. 1084 OF 2017
Decision
The court dismissed the winding-up petition as withdrawn, noting that the dispute over the payable debt constituted a triable issue. The court stated that the Company Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts regarding debt liability and directed the petitioner to seek resolution through a commercial suit in the appropriate Commercial Court. The petitioner was granted liberty to file proceedings before the appropriate Commercial Court and to seek condonation of delay for the period spent during the pendency of the winding-up proceedings.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Winding-up Petition transfer to NCLT from HC due to proceedings at nascent stage.

PartiesEster Industries Ltd. v. Indus Polyfilms Specialists (P.) Ltd.
CourtHIGH COURT OF DELHI
CitationCO.PET. 320 OF 2008 C.O. APPL. 1162 OF 2008 AND 373 OF 2019
Decision
Considering the enactment of Companies Act, 2013, ourt decided to transfer winding-up petition from the HC to the NCLT by Section 434. Emphasizing the lack of substantial progress in the winding-up proceedings and citing relevant interpretations, the court concluded that transferring the case to the NCLT was appropriate. Parties were directed to appear before the NCLT on a specified date, while interim orders issued by the HC were to remain in effect until then, allowing the NCLT to consider the matter and make appropriate decisions by law.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Refund Granted for Excess Stamp Duty Payment on Share Capital

PartiesState of Maharashtra v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCIVIL APPEAL NO.8821 OF 2011
Decision
The Court determined that the notice to the Registrar for increasing share capital is not an instrument under the Stamp Act. Alterations to AoA under the Companies Act were deemed valid and treated as if originally contained therein. The Court held that the Companies Act, as a special law, overrides the Stamp Act concerning AoA, leading to the directive to refund the stamp duty paid by the company.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Supreme Court Orders Payment with Interest in Securities Dispute

PartiesSharda Kapur v. Angel Broking Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2989-2990 OF 2024
Decision
Considering the prolonged litigation and Kapurs advanced age (87 years), the SC invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to end the dispute swiftly. The Court directed Angel Broking Ltd to pay Kapur Rs. 21 lakh along with simple interest at a rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Appellate Arbitral Tribunals award (27th September 2013). The Court emphasized the need for timely compliance, giving the respondent two months to fulfill its liability recognized by the Tribunal, and clarified the procedure for lifting any lien placed by the NSE once payment was made.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Supreme Court Upholds SAT Decision on SEBI Penalty

PartiesSecurities and Exchange Board of India v. ALPS Motor Finance Ltd.
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationCIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6737-6738 OF 2023
Decision
The SC upheld the SATs decision, finding no good ground or reason to interfere with it. The Court dismissed SEBIs appeal against the SATs judgment. The Courts decision affirmed the importance of shareholder ratification and highlighted the issue of inordinate delay in adjudication proceedings as significant factor in dismissing SEBIs penalty order.
COMPANY LAW
Share:

Court Validates Capital Threshold Increase in Landmark Ruling.

PartiesSuman Kumar v. Union of India
CourtSUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CitationWRIT PETITION NO. 719 OF 2020
Decision
The court upheld the validity of the amendment, deeming the increase in paid-up share capital reasonable and aligned with business facilitation. The court emphasized that companies involved in fraud cannot seek relief, as approaching the court with unclean hands is impermissible. Stringent penalties and the existence of the SFIO address such cases.
COMPANY LAW
Share:
--- visitors