M&A Associates

As #15th #August is approaching, would llike to bring to your attention a clarification regarding the utilization of #CSR #funds under the Companies Act, 2013, in relation to the ‘#Har #Ghar #Tiranga’ #campaign, which is being conducted under the aegis of #Azadi Ka #Amrit #Mahotsav." This campaign is aimed to promoting awareness about the Indian #National #Flag. It is clarified that #expenditure on #activities related to this campaign is eligible as CSR spending under Item (ii) of #Schedule VII of the Companies Act, 2013, which covers the promotion of education relating to culture. #Eligible #activities include, but are not limited to: 1) Mass-scale production and supply of the National Flag, 2) Outreach and amplification efforts, and 3) Other related promotional activities. We hope this provides the necessary clarity for planning your CSR initiatives around this campaign. Regards, Team M&A 

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥? Ans: 𝒐𝒏 𝒂 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒐𝒖𝒔 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 230(1) 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 230(2)(𝒄) 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝑨𝒄𝒕, 2013, 𝒊𝒕 𝒊𝒔 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒂𝒑𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒚 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒅𝒆𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒎𝒊𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒓 𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 66 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝑨𝒄𝒕,2013 𝒘𝒐𝒖𝒍𝒅 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒓𝒆𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝒃𝒆 𝒇𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒆𝒑𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒍𝒚. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺. 𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯/ 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳/𝘔𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳, 𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 66 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘕𝘰𝘵𝘦 :𝘉𝘺 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘚𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘱𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 230-232 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 66 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝑨𝒄𝒕, 2013 𝒕𝒐 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒍 𝒘𝒊𝒕𝒉 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒏𝒂𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒐𝒇 𝑪𝒂𝒑𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒍.

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐒𝐄𝐁𝐈 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐔𝐏𝐒𝐈 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞'𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐩𝐡𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐇𝐃𝐅𝐂 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐃𝐅𝐂 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤   •𝘔𝘳. 𝘟 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘋𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘏𝘋𝘍𝘊 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘓𝘵𝘥. 𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 29, 2022 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘋𝘍𝘊 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘓𝘵𝘥. 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘋𝘍𝘊 𝘓𝘵𝘥. 𝘈𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘮, 𝘔𝘳. 𝘟 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘶𝘴, 𝘔𝘳. 𝘟, 𝘣𝘺 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘋𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦, 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘜𝘗𝘚𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 •𝘔𝘳. 𝘠 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 2017. 𝘔𝘳. 𝘠 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘊𝘈 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘔𝘳 𝘟 • 𝘔𝘳. 𝘙𝘶𝘱𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘚𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘋𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘭 (𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳/𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥) 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘳. 𝘠. 𝘔𝘳 𝘠’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘏𝘋𝘍𝘊 𝘓𝘵𝘥. 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘋𝘍𝘊 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘓𝘵𝘥. 𝘪𝘯 𝘍&𝘖 𝘴𝘦𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘭 04, 2022 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘵. 𝘚𝘰𝘯'𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘋𝘍𝘊 𝘓𝘵𝘥. 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘏𝘋𝘍𝘊 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘬 𝘓𝘵𝘥. 𝐒𝐄𝐁𝐈'𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 Accused Mr Dalal violated Regulations 3(2) and 4(1) of the PIT Regulations and sections 12A(d) and (e) of the SEBI Act. Penalty on Mr. Dalal – Rs 10lacs   𝐌&𝐀'𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐄𝐁𝐈'𝐬 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 It was alleged in the Show Cause Notice that the Mr. Dalal had procured UPSI regarding the impending merger of HDFC Ltd. with HDFC Bank Ltd. from his own son’s friend who was the part of valuation team of Deloitte. Thereafter, Mr Dalal is alleged to have traded in the scrip of HDFC Ltd. and #HDFC Bank Ltd. based on the said #UPSI. In terms of regulation 2(1)(n)(iv) of the #PIT Regulations,“ merger” is deemed to include within the definition of UPSI https://lnkd.in/gEsCPqjC

𝐌𝐫. 𝐁, 𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐲, 𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐑𝐬. 𝟐𝟎,𝟎𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎/- 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐁𝐂 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐋𝐭𝐝., 𝐚 𝐬𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐤, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐌𝐫. 𝐁 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐁𝐂 𝐁𝐚𝐧𝐤 𝐋𝐭𝐝.? Ans_- A Practicing Company Secretary or a firm shall not be indebted to the listed entity and its related entities for an amount #exceeding Rs. #5 lakhs. However, #commercial #transactions which are in the ordinary course of business of the listed entity and at arms’ length price are exempted in terms of Annexure 2 of SEBI Circular SEBI/HO/CFD/CFD-PoD-2/CIR/P/2024/185 dated December 31, 2024. 𝑰𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒈𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒄𝒂𝒔𝒆, 𝒊𝒇 𝑴𝒓. 𝑩’𝒔 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒏 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 #𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒂𝒓𝒚 𝒄𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒇 #𝒃𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒏𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒊𝒔 𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒔’ 𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒕𝒉, 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒏 #𝑴𝒓. 𝑩 𝒔𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒔𝒒𝒖𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒃𝒆𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒊𝒏𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒂𝒔 𝑺𝒆𝒄𝒓𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒍 𝑨𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒐𝒓 𝒐𝒇 #𝑨𝑩𝑪 𝑩𝒂𝒏𝒌 𝑳𝒕𝒅. Courtesy SEBI circular #SEBI #CS #PCS #ArmsLength #Appointment

Attachment to ‘Directors’ report as per sub-section (3) of section 134’ got removed in AOC-4, AOC-4 CFS, AOC-4 NBFC and AOC-4 NBFC CFS. Is it required to include ‘Boards report’ while attaching ‘Financial Statements’ to these forms? Yes. Copy of financial statements duly authenticated as per section 134 (including Board‘s report, auditors‘ report and other documents) to be attached mandatorily while filing AOC-4, AOC-4 CFS, AOC-4 NBFC and AOC-4 NBFC CFS. find many such answers in the attached PPT prepared by us M&A Associates #MCA #V3 #v2 #law   Also, above mentioned attachment is required to be attached while filing AOC-4 XBRL in addition to XBRL financial statements.

whether an Appeal for Restoration of the Company's name, when struck off by ROC under section 248(1), is maintainable under section 252(3) of the Companies Act? Ans: The #NCLT interpreted sec #252 to mean that an appeal under section 252(1) must be filed within 3 years from the date of ROC's order and that section 252(3) was not applicable in cases where the ROC , #struck off the Company's name under section 248(1), However #NCLAT held that section 252 only refers to striking off under section 248, without specifying whether section 252 (1) is applicable to section 248(1) or section 252(3) to section 248(2). The appellate tribunal held that section 252 of the Companies Act does not distinguish between the #modes of #striking off a Company's name for the purpose of #limitation and #maintainability of an #appeal, Since the appeal was filed by a member, and the NCLT's contrary view that it petition for restoration should have been filed within 3 years from the date of ROC order was incorrect

Restriction on layer of Companies and disclosures thereon. #CorporateCompliance #CompanyLaw #HoldingCompany #SubsidiaryStructure #MCAIndia #CompaniesAct #LegalUpdate #CorporateGovernance #LayeredStructure #CRLForm #BusinessCompliance #CompanyLawIndia

Modification now allowed in FEMA FC-GPR filing

Happy CA DAY

POSH Law (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013) has been always talk of town this time Ministry of corporate affairs has decided to introduce few new clauses which our team has highlighted including other various clauses . #POSH #SexualHarassment #WorkplaceSafety #EmployeeRights #RespectAtWork #LegalCompliance #GenderEquality #HarassmentFree #InternalComplaintsCommittee #WorkplaceCulture #SafeWorkplace #LegalAwareness #EthicalWorkplace