ROC Cracks Down on Company and Directors Over SBO Disclosure Norms Violation:

ROC Chhattisgarh has imposed a Rs 3 lakh penalty on the company and its two directors for failing to identify and disclose Significant Beneficial Owners (SBO).
Failure to Identify Beneficial Owners Lands Company Trouble

ROC Cracks Down on Company and Directors Over SBO Disclosure Norms Violation
The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Chhattisgarh, has imposed a penalty amounting to Rs 3 lakh on the company, Zigma Dealcomm Private Limited and its two directors for violation under Section 90(11) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The concerned ministry had directed an inquiry into the affairs of the disputed company under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013. During the enquiry, it was observed that some shareholders were holding more than 10% of the shares in the company, as per the data available on the MCA portal. However, the company did not take the required steps to identify the Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO) as obligatory under Section 90(4A) and also did not file Form BEN-2, as required under Section 90(4).
This reflects an explicit contravention of the provisions of Section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rules 4 and 8 of the SBO Rules, 2018. Consequently, the company was liable for penal action under Section 90(11) of the Companies Act, 2013. Neither the company nor its directors asked for an e-hearing. Therefore, no e-hearing was scheduled.
Considering the same aforementioned findings, a Rs 2 lakh penalty has been imposed on the company, Zigma Dealcomm Private Limited and Rs 1 lakh on its two directors, Kailash Kumar Agrawal and Pradeep Kumar Agrawal (Rs 50,000 on each). They have been directed to pay the imposed penalty amount and rectify the default within 90 days of receiving the order.
About Author

Saloni Kumari
Content Writer
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
Saloni is a Content Writer with 2+ years of experience at studycafe.in. She writes legal, taxation, and finance related content including GST, Income Tax etc. Skilled in translating complex judicial pronouncements and regulatory developments into clear, and reader-friendly articles. Experienced in covering judgements of ITAT, High Court, GSTAT, and news related to Income Tax, GST, and corporate law. She can be reached at [email protected].
StudyCafe
Delhi, Delhi, India
2484My Recent Articles
- ITAT Says Identity and Creditworthiness Irrelevant Where Loan Was Directly Paid to Haryana Mining DepartmentPremium
- Earlier Rejection Cannot Be Sole Ground to Reject Fresh Section 12AB and 80G Registration Applications, Says ITATPremium
- Cash Deposited During Demonetisation Cannot Be Taxed Under Section 69A if Linked to Business, Holds ITAT Premium
- ITAT Condones 1,731-Day Delay, Remands Cancer Trust's Section 12A Registration Application for Fresh ConsiderationPremium
- ITAT Lowers Estimated Profit Rate from 8% to 4% After Considering State Shutdown and Medicine Trade MarginsPremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








