ROC Penalises Director for Incorrect E-form AOC-4 Filing:

ROC Mumbai fined a company director Rs. 10,000 for an incorrect AOC-4 filing due to a clerical error under the Companies Act, 2013.
Minor E-Filing Error Costs Director Rs. 10,000 Penalty

ROC Penalises Director for Incorrect E-form AOC-4 Filing
The Registrar of Companies (ROC) Mumbai has issued an order of adjudication dated January 23, 2026, imposing a penalty amounting to Rs. 10,000 on the director of Sub Zero Insulation Technologies Private Limited, named Rashmi Anand, having DIN 00366258. The penalty has been levied under Section 454 of the Companies Act 2013 for the contravention of Section 450 of the Act.
The company had voluntarily filed an adjudication application dated November 28, 2025, under Section 454 of the Companies Act, 2013, adding the incorrect filing of E-form AOC-4 for the Financial Year 2024-25. The ROC asked for clarification on December 11, 2025, and replied on December 22, 2025.
The key default in the present case was that a required field related to the rebate/drawback of taxes and duties was mistakenly left empty due to a clerical mistake. The form was required to be digitally signed and declared by the company's director, i.e., Ms Rasmi Anand.
Under the provisions of the company rules, the individual who signs and certifies an electronic form is also responsible for the correctness of its details and attachments. Since the disputed forms include mistakes in them, the director is held responsible for non-compliance and hence also entitled to the required penal action under Section 450 of the Companies Act, 2013. In conclusion, the ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the director. Additionally, directed to pay the penalty amount and rectify the default within 90 days from receipt of 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
2701My Recent Articles
- ITAT Rejects Section 69A Unexplained Money Addition Based on Alleged Over-Invoicing Entry Found in Third-Party SearchPremium
- ITAT Condoned 336-Day Delay in Section 68 Case After Taxpayer Cites Lack Of Online Communication AwarenessPremium
- United Breweries Secures Full Relief from Bombay High Court in Rs 21.92 Crore Service Tax Dispute
- Aries Agro Faces Rs 3.96 Crore GST Demand Over ITC Availment from Retrospectively Cancelled Vendors
- ITAT Restores Appeal Over Rs 9.33 Crore Section 68 Share Application Addition After DTVSV Payment FailurePremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts
All Posts
Recent Posts
All Posts








