https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755228 The Registrar of Companies & Adjudicating Officer, UP, Kanpur ruled on non-compliance with Section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO) disclosure requirements. The company failed to exercise due diligence in identifying SBOs and provide required documentation. The court held that Section 90 establishes dual objective and subjective tests for SBO identification through shareholding thresholds or significant influence/control. The company and its officers violated Section 90(4A) by failing to identify and require SBO compliance. The company was directed to identify all SBOs and file e-form BEN-2 within 90 days under Section 454(3)(b), with penalties imposed for the violation. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2024 17:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755228 The Registrar of Companies & Adjudicating Officer, UP, Kanpur ruled on non-compliance with Section 90 of the Companies Act, 2013 regarding Significant Beneficial Owner (SBO) disclosure requirements. The company failed to exercise due diligence in identifying SBOs and provide required documentation. The court held that Section 90 establishes dual objective and subjective tests for SBO identification through shareholding thresholds or significant influence/control. The company and its officers violated Section 90(4A) by failing to identify and require SBO compliance. The company was directed to identify all SBOs and file e-form BEN-2 within 90 days under Section 454(3)(b), with penalties imposed for the violation. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755228