Independent director 149(6) (e)
This query is : Resolved
11 June 2021
who neither himself nor any of his relatives- is or had been employee of the co . in any of 3 fy immediately preeceding the fy in which i.d is proposed to be appointed.
provided in case of relative who is emplyee the restriction under this clase shall not apply during 3preecding 3 fy.
my dobut is... in first para it says for 3 fy relative shall not be associated as employee of co, and in 2nd para it allows those relatives who are associated as employee during 3 pfy.
dear members plz...help me with correct interpretation.
provided in case of relative who is emplyee the restriction under this clase shall not apply during 3preecding 3 fy.
my dobut is... in first para it says for 3 fy relative shall not be associated as employee of co, and in 2nd para it allows those relatives who are associated as employee during 3 pfy.
dear members plz...help me with correct interpretation.
08 July 2021
Please go through below explained scenarios to understand:
Case-1: The proposed candidate for independent director himself was an employee- Then the rule of preceding 3 financial year applies
Case-2: The proposed candidate is having a relative who is working as an employee as on date of appointment- Then he doesn't qualify to become an independent director because his relative is an employee as on that date
Case-3: Proposed candidate's relative was working as an employee assume in the previous year but currently not working there- Then in such case he is eligible to be appointed as an independent director. Because rule of 3 preceding financial year doesn't apply in case of relative, being an employee.
Also to clarify further in the section 149(e)(ii) the term used "is" or "has" but by mistake you have read it as "had" hence the confusion.
Hope it clarifies your doubt
Case-1: The proposed candidate for independent director himself was an employee- Then the rule of preceding 3 financial year applies
Case-2: The proposed candidate is having a relative who is working as an employee as on date of appointment- Then he doesn't qualify to become an independent director because his relative is an employee as on that date
Case-3: Proposed candidate's relative was working as an employee assume in the previous year but currently not working there- Then in such case he is eligible to be appointed as an independent director. Because rule of 3 preceding financial year doesn't apply in case of relative, being an employee.
Also to clarify further in the section 149(e)(ii) the term used "is" or "has" but by mistake you have read it as "had" hence the confusion.
Hope it clarifies your doubt
18 October 2021
yes you are right, i read it as " had" instead of "has"......Thanks for the help mam.
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Where to show the RCM on Rent paid to unregistered landlord
- Form 26QB for TDS on property
- CPC Processing IT Return for AY 2023-24 without recognizing the Taxation Option under New Regime
- Is Aadhar PAN linking required for opening bank account?
- Legal heir raised refund , but refund issued to the closed account of deceased.
- TDS NUMBER SURRENDER
- Whether still royalty
- Offsetting interest income against derivative trading losses
- SEC 54 OF IT ACT
- RCM - commercial rent paid to URP under GST
- Gratuity Withdrawls
- DEMAND ORDER
- Amendment of September 2021 Invoice
- Issue of gst e invoice
- Interchangeable words in accounts
- Adjusted profit/Loss in the case of LLP and Pvt. Ltd.company
- How to adjusted advances given or receipt
- Foreign vendor without PAN unable to to register due to non receipt of OTP on foreign number ?
- 133(6) DIN INVALID format error - ->WHERE TO REPLY 133(6) notice?
- Query for dubts
Trending Online Classes
-
Excel Mastery Program
CA Rishabh Pugalia
CAclubindia
