DPT-3 Filing for FY 2025-26: 11 Deposit Misclassification Errors Every Company Must Avoid
Overview: The Extended Deadline and What It Does Not Cover
Under MCA General Circular 02/2026, the due date for filing Form DPT-3 for FY 2025-26 has been extended to 31 July 2026, with the reporting position captured as on 31 March 2026. However, companies that treat this extension as breathing room to overlook classification accuracy are misreading the situation entirely.
A deadline extension postpones the filing. It does not reduce, modify, or forgive the legal consequences of incorrectly categorising receipts — whether as deposits or as amounts not considered deposits. The classification decision carries far heavier implications than the filing date itself.
Critical Note: The most damaging compliance failure in DPT-3 filings is not late submission — it is wrong classification. The penalty architecture under the Companies Act 2013 treats these two failures very differently, and the consequences for misclassification fall directly on individual directors.
What is Form DPT-3 and Who Must File It?
Form DPT-3 is a statutory return filed under Rule 16 and Rule 16A of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014. It is a creature of the Companies Act 2013 and applies exclusively to companies — including private companies, public companies, One Person Companies (OPCs), small companies, and Section 8 companies.
LLPs do not file DPT-3. Limited Liability Partnerships operate under the LLP Act, 2008 and file Form 8 and Form 11. This distinction is absolute and admits no exceptions.
Companies Genuinely Outside DPT-3 Obligations
The category of companies fully exempt from DPT-3 is narrow and precisely defined:
- Government companies
- Banking companies
- NBFCs registered with the Reserve Bank of India
- Housing finance companies registered with the National Housing Bank
All other companies — regardless of size or activity — fall within the filing requirement.
The Most Misunderstood Concept: "Exempt" Does Not Mean "Exempt from Filing"
This single misconception sits at the heart of most DPT-3 defaults. When a receipt qualifies as an amount not considered a deposit under Rule 2(1)(c) of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 2014 — such as a bank loan, an inter-corporate loan, or a director's loan accompanied by the requisite declaration — it is still required to be reported in DPT-3.
A company that files nothing on the basis that it "has no deposits" has almost certainly misread the form. DPT-3 captures both deposits and amounts not considered deposits. The exclusion list under Rule 2(1)(c)(i) through Rule 2(1)(c)(xviii) is considerably broader than most practitioners routinely account for.
The reason classification accuracy matters more here than in a routine annual return is straightforward: when a receipt that ought to have been treated as a deposit is wrongly labelled as exempt, the exposure is not a nominal filing fee. It triggers
Section 76Aof the Companies Act 2013 — a company-level fine of ₹1 crore to ₹10 crore, and for every officer in default, including directors, imprisonment of up to seven years, or a fine of ₹25 lakh to ₹2 crore, or both.
The Registrar of Companies examines precisely these transactions during inspection and adjudication proceedings. The liability is personal to the directors. That is the reason this requires careful attention at the time of filing — not at the adjudication stage.
11 Commonly Misclassified Receipts in DPT-3 Filings
1. Director's Loan Taken Without a Written Declaration
What companies assume: Any money received from a director is automatically exempt from deposit classification.
What the Rules actually say: The exemption under Rule 2(1)(c)(viii) is conditional. It applies only when the director furnishes a written declaration stating that the amount is being lent from their own funds and has not been borrowed by them from any other source. Without this declaration, the exemption does not arise, and the amount is treated as a deposit.
ROC's position: The written declaration is a legal condition, not an administrative formality. It must be obtained at the time of receipt, maintained on record, and the amount must be disclosed in the Board's Report as well as the financial statements. A director's loan sitting in the books without a contemporaneous written declaration is among the most frequently identified reclassification findings during ROC scrutiny.
2. Loan from a Director's Relative — In a Public Company
What companies assume: Since directors enjoy an exemption, their relatives should be covered equally across all company types.
What the Rules actually say: The relative exemption under Rule 2(1)(c)(viii) is available only to private companies. A public company that accepts a loan from a director's relative — spouse, parent, sibling — has accepted a deposit, regardless of any familial connection to a director.
ROC's position: The director route (with written declaration) is available to both private and public companies. The relative route exists only for private companies. Public companies that have borrowed from a director's close relative on the assumption of equivalent treatment are directly exposed under Section 76A.
3. Loan from a Director's HUF
What companies assume: Since the Karta is a director of the company, a loan from the HUF is effectively a director's loan or a relative's loan.