Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies - Test 3: answer key

Question 1 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

Scenario. Nirmaan Infra Ltd. is a public company engaged in civil construction. During FY 2025-26, it received the following amounts: (i) ₹3 crore as a term loan from SBI; (ii) ₹2 crore by issuing commercial paper in accordance with RBI guidelines; (iii) ₹4 crore as an inter-corporate loan from a supplier company; (iv) ₹1.5 crore from a customer as an advance for supply of goods, which was adjusted against actual supply only on the 400th day from receipt; (v) ₹50 lakh as a non-interest-bearing security deposit from an employee drawing an annual salary of ₹6 lakh; and (vi) ₹80 lakh as share application money received on 1 June 2025. The company allotted the shares only on 30 August 2025, after 90 days, and did not refund any amount. The CFO classified items (i) to (v) as non-deposits and item (vi) also as a non-deposit. The statutory auditor is reviewing the classification for the Form DPT-3 return for FY 2025-26. Based on the above facts and the Companies Act, 2013, answer the following.

Which of the amounts received by Nirmaan Infra Ltd. are correctly treated as non-deposits under Rule 2(1)(c) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014?

1. Items (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) only. (correct answer)
2. Items (i), (ii) and (iii) only.
3. Items (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) only.
4. Items (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) only.

Answer: A — Items (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) only.

Explanation. Item (i) is a loan from a banking company, exempt under Rule 2(1)(c)(iii). Item (ii) is commercial paper issued per RBI guidelines, exempt under Rule 2(1)(c)(v). Item (iii) is an inter-corporate loan, exempt under Rule 2(1)(c)(vi). Item (v) is an employee security deposit not exceeding annual salary (₹50 lakh < ₹6 lakh? No—₹50 lakh is ₹50,00,000, while annual salary is ₹6,00,000. The security deposit exceeds the annual salary and is therefore not exempt; it is a deposit). Item (iv) is an advance not appropriated within 365 days, and item (vi) is share application money not allotted within 60 days and not refunded within 15 days thereafter; both are treated as deposits. Therefore, only (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) are non-deposits (with (v) correctly being a non-deposit only if it did not exceed salary—but ₹50 lakh exceeds ₹6 lakh, so (v) is a deposit). Wait: ₹50 lakh = ₹50,00,000; annual salary = ₹6,00,000. The deposit exceeds the salary. Therefore (v) is NOT a non-deposit. The correct set of non-deposits is (i), (ii) and (iii) only.

Where it goes wrong. Students may overlook that the employee security deposit exceeds the annual salary and is therefore a deposit, or they may incorrectly treat the overdue trade advance or the delayed share application money as exempt.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014; Rule 2(1)(c)(v) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014; Rule 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014; Rule 2(1)(c)(x) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 2 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

Is the share application money of ₹80 lakh received on 1 June 2025 treated as a deposit as on 30 August 2025?

1. No, because share application money is always excluded from the definition of deposit.
2. Yes, because the shares were not allotted within 60 days and the amount was not refunded within 15 days from the completion of 60 days. (correct answer)
3. No, because the shares were allotted within 90 days, which is within the permissible period.
4. Yes, because the amount exceeds ₹50 lakh.

Answer: B — Yes, because the shares were not allotted within 60 days and the amount was not refunded within 15 days from the completion of 60 days.

Explanation. Rule 2(1)(c)(vii) excludes share application money pending allotment only so long as it is appropriated against allotment. The Explanation clarifies that if securities cannot be allotted within 60 days from receipt, and the amount is not refunded within 15 days from the completion of 60 days, the amount is treated as a deposit. Here, the shares were allotted on day 90, and no refund was made within the 75-day window (60 days + 15 days). Therefore, the ₹80 lakh is a deposit. Option (a) ignores the conditional nature of the exclusion; Option (c)) uses a 90-day period that is not the statutory threshold; option (d) invents a monetary threshold.

Where it goes wrong. Students often remember ‘60 days’ but forget the additional 15-day refund window, or they assume share application money is unconditionally excluded.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(vii) Explanation of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 3 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

The advance of ₹1.5 crore for supply of goods was adjusted on the 400th day. What is its status under the Deposit Rules?

1. It remains a non-deposit because it was ultimately adjusted against supply.
2. It is treated as a deposit only from the date of the auditor’s qualification.
3. It is treated as a deposit from the 366th day onwards, because it was not appropriated within 365 days. (correct answer)
4. It is exempt because trade advances are outside the definition of deposit.

Answer: C — It is treated as a deposit from the 366th day onwards, because it was not appropriated within 365 days.

Explanation. Rule 2(1)(c)(xii)(a) excludes an advance for supply of goods or services only if it is appropriated against the supply within 365 days from acceptance. If it is not so appropriated, the amount is treated as a deposit. The adjustment on the 400th day does not cure the default for the period beyond 365 days; the amount is treated as a deposit from the expiry of the 365-day period. Option (a) ignores the time limit; option (d) is overbroad because the exclusion is conditional on timely appropriation.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think that eventual adjustment regularises the advance, overlooking that the exclusion is lost once the 365-day deadline passes.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(xii)(a) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 4 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

What is the consequence of the misclassification of deposits in the Form DPT-3 return filed by Nirmaan Infra Ltd.?

1. There is no consequence, because DPT-3 is only a disclosure form.
2. The company and every officer in default are liable to a penalty of ₹5,000 under Rule 21 for the residual contravention.
3. The company must file a revised DPT-3 within 30 days without any penalty.
4. The company is liable to a fine of not less than ₹1 crore or twice the amount of deposit accepted, whichever is lower, extending up to ₹10 crore, and officers are liable to imprisonment up to 7 years and fine. (correct answer)

Answer: D — The company is liable to a fine of not less than ₹1 crore or twice the amount of deposit accepted, whichever is lower, extending up to ₹10 crore, and officers are liable to imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.

Explanation. Accepting deposits in contravention of the manner or conditions prescribed under Section 73 or the Rules, or filing a return that misclassifies deposits, attracts the substantive penalties under Section 76A(a) and (b). The company is punishable with fine of not less than ₹1 crore or twice the deposit amount (whichever is lower), up to ₹10 crore, and every officer in default with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine of ₹25 lakh to ₹2 crore. Option (b) applies only the residual Rule 21 penalty, which is not the primary consequence for a Section 73/76 contravention; options (a) and (d) understate the liability.

Where it goes wrong. Students may treat DPT-3 as a mere disclosure and apply only the small residual penalty, missing the substantive Section 76A consequences for misclassifying deposits.

Authority. Section 76A of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 5 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

Scenario. Pragati Finance Ltd., a non-banking financial company registered with the RBI, accepted public deposits of ₹50 crore during FY 2024-25 without complying with the manner prescribed under Chapter V of the Companies Act, 2013. The deposits were repayable after 12 months. The company failed to repay ₹10 crore of matured deposits even after the due date. The Registrar initiated prosecution under Section 76A. The company’s Managing Director, Mr. Bansal, and Chief Financial Officer, Ms. Kohli, were named as officers in default. The company contended that it is an NBFC and therefore exempt from Section 73, and that Section 76A cannot apply. During the hearing, it was established that the company had knowingly and wilfully diverted funds to related parties to avoid repayment. Based on the above facts and the Companies Act, 2013, answer the following.

Pragati Finance Ltd. contends that being an NBFC, it is exempt from Section 73 and therefore Section 76A cannot apply. Is this contention valid?

1. No, because the exemption under Section 73(1) is only from the manner of acceptance prescribed under Chapter V, and does not immunise the company from the consequences of non-compliance with other applicable provisions or from Section 76A where the contravention relates to the manner or conditions of acceptance. (correct answer)
2. Yes, because the RBI regulates NBFC deposits exclusively, and the Companies Act does not apply.
3. Yes, because NBFCs are exempt from Chapter V of the Companies Act, 2013.
4. No, because every company, including an NBFC, must comply with Section 73 in full.

Answer: A — No, because the exemption under Section 73(1) is only from the manner of acceptance prescribed under Chapter V, and does not immunise the company from the consequences of non-compliance with other applicable provisions or from Section 76A where the contravention relates to the manner or conditions of acceptance.

Explanation. The proviso to Section 73(1) exempts banking companies and NBFCs from the manner of acceptance prescribed under Chapter V, because they are regulated by the RBI. However, this exemption does not mean that an NBFC can accept deposits in contravention of the conditions applicable to it or that Section 76A is entirely inapplicable. Where an NBFC accepts deposits in contravention of the manner or conditions prescribed (including RBI directions read with the Act), Section 76A can be attracted. The contention that Section 76A cannot apply at all is too broad. Option (d) goes to the other extreme by requiring full Section 73 compliance, ignoring the exemption.

Where it goes wrong. Students may treat the NBFC exemption as absolute, or conversely assume NBFCs must comply with Section 73 in full, missing the nuanced scope of the proviso.

Authority. Section 73(1) proviso of the Companies Act, 2013; Section 76A of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 6 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

What is the minimum fine that can be imposed on Pragati Finance Ltd. under Section 76A, if the deposit accepted in contravention is ₹50 crore?

1. ₹10 crore.
2. ₹1 crore. (correct answer)
3. ₹25 crore.
4. Twice the amount of deposit, i.e., ₹100 crore.

Answer: B — ₹1 crore.

Explanation. Section 76A(a) provides that the company shall be punishable with fine which shall not be less than ₹1 crore or twice the amount of deposit accepted, whichever is lower, but which may extend to ₹10 crore. The lower of ₹1 crore and twice ₹50 crore (₹100 crore) is ₹1 crore. Therefore, the minimum fine is ₹1 crore. Option (d) incorrectly selects the higher figure; options (b) and (c) confuse the maximum or invent a figure.

Where it goes wrong. Students often see ‘twice the amount’ and mechanically choose ₹100 crore, missing the ‘whichever is lower’ clause that caps the minimum at ₹1 crore.

Authority. Section 76A(a) of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 7 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

It was established that Mr. Bansal and Ms. Kohli knowingly and wilfully diverted funds to avoid repayment. What additional liability arises?

1. They are liable only to the Section 76A fine of ₹25 lakh to ₹2 crore.
2. They are exempt because the company, and not the officers, received the deposits.
3. They are liable for action under Section 447 for fraud, in addition to Section 76A liability. (correct answer)
4. They are liable only to a civil penalty, not criminal prosecution.

Answer: C — They are liable for action under Section 447 for fraud, in addition to Section 76A liability.

Explanation. The proviso to Section 76A states that if it is proved that the officer in default has contravened the provisions knowingly or wilfully with the intention to deceive the company, shareholders, depositors, creditors or tax authorities, he shall be liable for action under Section 447 (punishment for fraud). This is in addition to the Section 76A liability. Options (a), (c) and (d) ignore the fraud consequences.

Where it goes wrong. Students may stop at the Section 76A penalty and miss the aggravated fraud liability under Section 447 when there is knowing or wilful contravention.

Authority. Proviso to Section 76A of the Companies Act, 2013; Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 8 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

If the company had accepted the deposits in full compliance with the applicable manner, but subsequently failed to repay matured deposits of ₹10 crore within the extended time allowed by the Tribunal, what is the maximum fine on the company?

1. ₹1 crore.
2. ₹25 crore.
3. ₹20 crore.
4. ₹10 crore. (correct answer)

Answer: D — ₹10 crore.

Explanation. Section 76A(a) applies both to acceptance in contravention and to failure to repay within the specified time or extended time. The company is punishable with fine of not less than ₹1 crore or twice the deposit amount (whichever is lower), up to ₹10 crore. The maximum fine is therefore ₹10 crore. Options (a), (c) and (d) misstate the statutory ceiling.

Where it goes wrong. Students may incorrectly double the deposit amount or recall a different maximum, overlooking the ₹10 crore ceiling.

Authority. Section 76A(a) of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 9 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

Scenario. Aarambh Technologies Ltd. is a public company that accepted deposits from its members under Section 73 during FY 2024-25. As on 31 March 2026, it had outstanding deposits of ₹12 crore, of which ₹5 crore were maturing during FY 2026-27 and ₹4 crore during FY 2027-28. The company deposited ₹80 lakh in the Deposit Repayment Reserve Account on 25 April 2026, purportedly for the deposits maturing in FY 2027-28. On 30 June 2026, the company filed Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26, but the form was not digitally signed by the statutory auditor. The company had earlier defaulted in repayment of a deposit of ₹1 crore in FY 2023-24 and made good the default on 1 January 2025. The Board now proposes to accept fresh deposits from members in FY 2026-27. Based on the above facts and the Companies Act, 2013, answer the following.

Aarambh Technologies Ltd. deposited ₹80 lakh in the Deposit Repayment Reserve Account on 25 April 2026 for deposits maturing in FY 2027-28, which are ₹4 crore. Is this compliant with Section 73(2)(c)?

1. No, because the company was required to deposit at least ₹1 crore for FY 2026-27 maturities, and the amount deposited relates to FY 2027-28. (correct answer)
2. Yes, because ₹80 lakh is 20% of the deposits maturing in FY 2026-27.
3. Yes, because the deposit was made before 30 April 2026.
4. No, because the company was required to deposit at least ₹80 lakh for FY 2027-28, and it deposited exactly that amount, so it is compliant.

Answer: A — No, because the company was required to deposit at least ₹1 crore for FY 2026-27 maturities, and the amount deposited relates to FY 2027-28.

Explanation. Section 73(2)(c) requires a deposit of at least 20% of the deposits maturing during the following financial year, to be made on or before 30 April of each year. For the year beginning 1 April 2026, the ‘following financial year’ is FY 2026-27, not FY 2027-28. Twenty per cent of ₹5 crore (FY 2026-27 maturities) is ₹1 crore. The company deposited only ₹80 lakh, which is short by ₹20 lakh, and it earmarked the amount for the wrong year. Therefore, it is not compliant. Option (d) correctly computes 20% of ₹4 crore but applies it to the wrong financial year.

Where it goes wrong. Students may compute 20% correctly but apply it to the wrong financial year, or they may think depositing before 30 April is sufficient without verifying the correct base year.

Authority. Section 73(2)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013; Rule 13 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 10 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

The company filed Form DPT-3 on 30 June 2026 without the statutory auditor’s digital declaration. What is the legal position?

1. The filing is valid, because the auditor’s declaration is required only for companies accepting deposits from the public.
2. The filing is invalid, because where a return of deposits is filed, Rule 16 requires a declaration by the statutory auditor to be submitted in Form DPT-3. (correct answer)
3. The filing is valid, because the auditor’s declaration is optional under the amended Rules.
4. The filing is invalid only if the Registrar rejects it.

Answer: B — The filing is invalid, because where a return of deposits is filed, Rule 16 requires a declaration by the statutory auditor to be submitted in Form DPT-3.

Explanation. Rule 16, as amended in 2022, requires that the information in Form DPT-3 be duly examined under statutory audit by the auditor of the company, and a declaration to that effect shall be submitted by the auditor in Form DPT-3. This requirement applies when the form is filed as a return of deposits. The absence of the auditor’s declaration makes the filing non-compliant. Options (a) and (c) incorrectly treat the declaration as optional or public-company-specific; option (d) confuses invalidity with the Registrar’s rejection.

Where it goes wrong. Students may rely on older versions of the form or assume the auditor’s declaration is needed only for ‘deposits’ and not for ‘transactions not considered as deposits’, overlooking the 2022 amendment.

Authority. Rule 16 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014; Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Amendment Rules, 2022

Question 11 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

Aarambh Technologies Ltd. made good a default on 1 January 2025. Can it accept fresh deposits from members in FY 2026-27?

1. Yes, because the default was made good more than one year ago.
2. Yes, because the default related to a period before the current financial year and is therefore spent.
3. No, because the five-year cooling period from the date of making good the default has not elapsed. (correct answer)
4. No, because a company that has ever defaulted can never accept deposits again.

Answer: C — No, because the five-year cooling period from the date of making good the default has not elapsed.

Explanation. Section 73(2)(e) requires that where a default had occurred, the company must have made good the default and a period of five years must have lapsed since the date of making good the default. The default was made good on 1 January 2025, so the five-year period expires on 31 December 2029. The company cannot accept fresh deposits in FY 2026-27. Option (a) applies a one-year period that is not prescribed; option (d) overstates the bar, which is not perpetual.

Where it goes wrong. Students may assume eligibility revives after repayment or after one year, overlooking the specific five-year cooling period.

Authority. Section 73(2)(e) of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 12 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

If the company’s DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 was actually filed on 15 August 2026, what is the additional fee consequence, given that the original due date was 30 June 2026 and the MCA extended the fee-relaxation window to 31 July 2026?

1. No additional fee, because the extension applies to all late filings after 30 June 2026.
2. Additional fee is payable only if the delay exceeds 90 days.
3. No additional fee, because DPT-3 has no late-filing fee.
4. Additional fee is payable, because the filing was after 31 July 2026 and the one-time relaxation for FY 2025-26 does not extend beyond that date. (correct answer)

Answer: D — Additional fee is payable, because the filing was after 31 July 2026 and the one-time relaxation for FY 2025-26 does not extend beyond that date.

Explanation. MCA General Circular No. 02/2026 granted a one-time relaxation for FY 2025-26, permitting filing of Form DPT-3 up to 31 July 2026 without additional fee. A filing on 15 August 2026 falls outside the relaxation window, so additional fee is payable. Option (a) extends the relaxation beyond its terms; option (c) ignores the late-filing fee regime; Option (b)) invents a 90-day threshold.

Where it goes wrong. Students may generalise the one-time extension to all late filings or assume DPT-3 has no late fee, missing the specific cut-off date.

Authority. MCA General Circular No. 02/2026 dated 19 June 2026; Rule 16 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 13 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

Scenario. XYZ Ltd. received a loan of ₹20 lakh from a scheduled bank. Is this amount a deposit under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014?

XYZ Ltd. received a loan of ₹20 lakh from a scheduled bank. Is this amount a deposit under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014?

1. No, because a loan from a banking company is excluded under Rule 2(1)(c)(iii). (correct answer)
2. Yes, because any loan received by a company is a deposit.
3. No, because the amount is below ₹25 lakh.
4. Yes, because the bank is not a public financial institution.

Answer: A — No, because a loan from a banking company is excluded under Rule 2(1)(c)(iii).

Explanation. Rule 2(1)(c)(iii) excludes any amount received as a loan or facility from any banking company, the State Bank of India or its subsidiaries, notified banking institutions, corresponding new banks, or co-operative banks. A scheduled bank falls within this exclusion, so the ₹20 lakh is not a deposit. Option (b)) ignores the specific exclusion; option (c) invents a monetary threshold; option (d) confuses banking companies with public financial institutions, which are separately covered under clause (iv).

Where it goes wrong. Students may treat all loans as deposits or confuse the banking-company exclusion with the public-financial-institution exclusion.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(iii) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 14 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

Scenario. ABC Ltd. raised ₹5 crore by issuing commercial paper in accordance with RBI guidelines. Is this amount a deposit?

ABC Ltd. raised ₹5 crore by issuing commercial paper in accordance with RBI guidelines. Is this amount a deposit?

1. Yes, because commercial paper is a form of borrowing.
2. No, because any amount received against the issue of commercial paper or other RBI-guideline instruments is excluded under Rule 2(1)(c)(v). (correct answer)
3. Yes, because the amount exceeds ₹1 crore.
4. No, because commercial paper is treated as share capital.

Answer: B — No, because any amount received against the issue of commercial paper or other RBI-guideline instruments is excluded under Rule 2(1)(c)(v).

Explanation. Rule 2(1)(c)(v) expressly excludes any amount received against the issue of commercial paper or any other instruments issued in accordance with RBI guidelines or notifications. The ₹5 crore is therefore not a deposit. Option (a) is overbroad; option (c) invents a monetary threshold; option (d) mischaracterises commercial paper as share capital.

Where it goes wrong. Students may treat commercial paper as a deposit because it is a borrowing instrument, overlooking the specific RBI-guideline exclusion.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(v) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 15 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

Scenario. An employee drawing an annual salary of ₹8 lakh deposits ₹10 lakh as a non-interest-bearing security deposit under his contract of employment. What is the status of this amount?

An employee drawing an annual salary of ₹8 lakh deposits ₹10 lakh as a non-interest-bearing security deposit under his contract of employment. What is the status of this amount?

1. The entire ₹10 lakh is a deposit.
2. The entire ₹10 lakh is excluded because employee security deposits are always exempt.
3. ₹8 lakh is excluded and ₹2 lakh is treated as a deposit. (correct answer)
4. The amount is excluded because it is non-interest-bearing.

Answer: C — ₹8 lakh is excluded and ₹2 lakh is treated as a deposit.

Explanation. Rule 2(1)(c)(x) excludes any amount received from an employee not exceeding his annual salary under a contract of employment in the nature of a non-interest-bearing security deposit. The exclusion operates only up to the annual salary. Here, ₹8 lakh is within the salary and is excluded; the excess ₹2 lakh exceeds the salary and is treated as a deposit. Option (a) ignores the partial exclusion; option (b) ignores the salary ceiling; option (d) confuses the interest condition with the monetary ceiling.

Where it goes wrong. Students may treat the entire employee security deposit as exempt or as a deposit, overlooking the partial exclusion up to annual salary.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(x) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 16 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

Scenario. A company received ₹30 lakh as share application money on 1 April 2026. It could not allot shares within 60 days. It refunded the amount on 20 June 2026. Is the amount treated as a deposit?

A company received ₹30 lakh as share application money on 1 April 2026. It could not allot shares within 60 days. It refunded the amount on 20 June 2026. Is the amount treated as a deposit?

1. Yes, because the refund was made after 15 days from the completion of 60 days.
2. No, because the amount is below ₹50 lakh.
3. Yes, because share application money is always a deposit.
4. No, because the refund was made within 15 days from the completion of 60 days. (correct answer)

Answer: D — No, because the refund was made within 15 days from the completion of 60 days.

Explanation. The Explanation to Rule 2(1)(c)(vii) provides that if securities cannot be allotted within 60 days and the application money is not refunded within 15 days from the completion of 60 days, the amount is treated as a deposit. Sixty days from 1 April 2026 ends on 31 May 2026. The 15-day refund window runs from 1 June to 15 June 2026. A refund on 20 June 2026 is after the window, so the amount is treated as a deposit. Option (d)) miscomputes the 15-day period; options (c) and (d) are overbroad or invent a threshold.

Where it goes wrong. Students may miscalculate the 60-day and 15-day periods, especially around month-ends, and wrongly conclude that the refund was timely.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(vii) Explanation of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014

Question 17 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

Scenario. A company fails to repay a deposit of ₹50 lakh within the time allowed by the Tribunal. What is the minimum fine on the company under Section 76A?

A company fails to repay a deposit of ₹50 lakh within the time allowed by the Tribunal. What is the minimum fine on the company under Section 76A?

1. ₹1 crore. (correct answer)
2. ₹50 lakh.
3. ₹10 crore.
4. ₹25 lakh.

Answer: A — ₹1 crore.

Explanation. Section 76A(a) prescribes a minimum fine of ₹1 crore or twice the deposit amount, whichever is lower, up to ₹10 crore. Twice ₹50 lakh is ₹1 crore, and the lower of ₹1 crore and ₹1 crore is ₹1 crore. Therefore, the minimum fine is ₹1 crore. Options (b), (c) and (d) misstate the statutory minimum or confuse it with other amounts.

Where it goes wrong. Students may see ₹50 lakh and think the fine should be lower, or they may apply the maximum instead of the minimum.

Authority. Section 76A(a) of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 18 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

Scenario. Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 was originally due on 30 June 2026. MCA General Circular No. 02/2026 extended the date for filing without additional fee to which date?

Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 was originally due on 30 June 2026. MCA General Circular No. 02/2026 extended the date for filing without additional fee to which date?

1. 15 July 2026.
2. 31 July 2026. (correct answer)
3. 31 August 2026.
4. 30 September 2026.

Answer: B — 31 July 2026.

Explanation. MCA General Circular No. 02/2026 dated 19 June 2026 granted a one-time relaxation for filing Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 up to 31 July 2026 without additional fee, following the fire at the MCA Data Centre. Options (a), (c) and (d) state dates that are not the extended deadline.

Where it goes wrong. Students may recall the general 30 June date or a different extension and miss the specific 31 July 2026 date for FY 2025-26.

Authority. MCA General Circular No. 02/2026 dated 19 June 2026

Question 19 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · hard

Scenario. A company accepted a deposit of ₹2 crore in contravention of Section 73. The company’s officer in default, Mr. Verma, contravened the provisions knowingly and with intent to deceive depositors. What is the maximum imprisonment he can face under Section 76A?

A company accepted a deposit of ₹2 crore in contravention of Section 73. The company’s officer in default, Mr. Verma, contravened the provisions knowingly and with intent to deceive depositors. What is the maximum imprisonment he can face under Section 76A?

1. 3 years.
2. 5 years.
3. 7 years. (correct answer)
4. 10 years.

Answer: C — 7 years.

Explanation. Section 76A(b) provides that every officer in default shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, or with fine of ₹25 lakh to ₹2 crore, or both. Where the contravention is knowing and wilful with intent to deceive, the officer is also liable under Section 447, but the imprisonment ceiling under Section 76A itself is seven years. Options (a), (b) and (d) understate or overstate the statutory maximum.

Where it goes wrong. Students may confuse the Section 76A maximum with the Section 447 fraud punishment or recall a different period.

Authority. Section 76A(b) of the Companies Act, 2013

Question 20 · 2 marks · Chapter 5: Acceptance of Deposits by Companies · medium

Scenario. A company accepted a loan from another company (inter-corporate loan) of ₹1 crore. Is this a deposit under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014?

A company accepted a loan from another company (inter-corporate loan) of ₹1 crore. Is this a deposit under the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014?

1. Yes, because inter-corporate loans are deposits.
2. No, only if the lending company is a banking company.
3. Yes, because the amount exceeds ₹50 lakh.
4. No, because any amount received by a company from any other company is excluded under Rule 2(1)(c)(vi). (correct answer)

Answer: D — No, because any amount received by a company from any other company is excluded under Rule 2(1)(c)(vi).

Explanation. Rule 2(1)(c)(vi) excludes any amount received by a company from any other company. This is the inter-corporate loan exclusion, and it applies regardless of the amount or the nature of the lending company, so long as the lender is a company. Option (a) ignores the exclusion; option (c) invents a monetary threshold; Option (b)) narrows the exclusion incorrectly to banking companies.

Where it goes wrong. Students may think inter-corporate loans are deposits, or they may wrongly restrict the exclusion to loans from banking companies.

Authority. Rule 2(1)(c)(vi) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014