Section 2(41) of the Act mandates accounting year of the company should be financial year. Whether ROC can accord permission for modification of accounting year to a particular year for 18 months period? In that case, what is a procedure under the new act?CS.PR.RAMANATHAN,Arthos Breweries Ltd, Chennai

Can a person who is not citizen of India hold equity shares in unlisted Public Company in India?

can foreign company set up LLP as a subsidiary in India

Dear Members, I have a doubt with respect to financial year end of the company. As per section 2(41) of companies act, 2013, financial year mean period ending on 31st March every year. And every company having a different financial year, shall within a period of 2 years (i.e., before 31st Mar, 2016) from the commencement of CA, 2013, align its financial year as per the provisions. Accordingly, a company (having its FY ending as on 31st December) intends to change its FY ending as 31st March. Thus, its FY will start form 1st Jan, 2016 to 31st Mar, 2017 and thereafter, from 1st April to 31st March every year. Whether a company can do so? Since, though the decision is taken to change its FY end before 31st Mar, 2016, the FY will end on 31st Mar, 2017 (after 31st Mar, 2016). Please advice.

The question is regarding definition of Related Party u/s 2(76). ABC Pvt Ltd is holding 33% shares in XYZ Pvt Ltd. Besides substantial share holding, there are two common directors on the board of both these pvt companies. Therefore, (1) whether both these Pvt companies will fall under the Related Party definition as per sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(76) ? (2) As per the latest exemption notification, sub-clause (viii) of Section 2(76) will not be applicable to Pvt Companies for the purpose of Section 188. So, if both these pvt companies are exempted by virtue of sub-clause (viii) from Section 188, whether these pvt companies will continue to be exempted evenif they are covered by sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(76), which is not exempted for applicability of Section 188. In nutshell, whether sub-clause (iv) and Sub-Clause (viii) of Section 2(76) shall be applied separately while deciding applicability of Sec 188 to Pvt Companies or sub-clause (viii) supersede sub clause (iv) while deciding the applicability of section 188 to Pvt companies. Thank you in advance,

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (“MCA”) notified on June 5, 2015 that certain provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”) shall not apply to private limited companies The Notification provides that, in relation to a private company, the entities specified in Section 2(76)(viii) of the 2013 Act (i.e., the Group Companies) would not be considered related parties for the purposes of Section 188. Since the Notification does not exempt private companies from the applicability of Section 2(76)(iv) of the 2013 Act, if the directors or managers in one private company are directors or members in another private company, a transaction between the two such companies would be considered as a related party transaction despite the exemption granted from Section 2(76)(viii). Therefore, if the intent is to exempt private companies from related party transactions , then section 2(76)(iv) should be not be applicable to private companies.

You are kindly requested to clarify that why in Point No. (i) of Section 2(51) i.e. in Definition of "Key Managerial Personnel" the Chief Executive Officer or the Managing Director or the Manager are in option (by using or) and rest are numbered consecutively? Is it implies that if a Company is having any of the two positions among the Chief Executive Officer or the Managing Director or the Manager then only one of the two or three can be termed as Key Managerial Personnel? Kindly clarify.....

whether the noting of the promoters name in the first Board Meeting is essential or naming the same in Annual Return to be filed under Section 92 will be sufficient.

relative

Which is the last date to alien the financials year as per Companies Act 2013? Can Company close its financials as at 31 December 2015 without obtaining tribunal approval?

In case of definition of a subsidiary company what is the meaning of "Controls the composition of Board of Directors" To illustrate with an example : A listed company has 10 Directors which includes 3 promoter Directors ,2 Non executive Directors and 5 Independent Directors. Out of the 3 promoter Directors one is MD/CEO of the company and another one is the executive chairman of the company and the third is a woman Director who is the spouse of the MD. If these 3 promoter Directors are the only Directors and hold majority shares in another company , does the later company become a subsidiary of the former listed company??