<!– wp:html —
The Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules, 2026 are a draft notification the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued on 8 April 2026, proposing to merge several company-incorporation e-forms into two consolidated forms, E-CHNG and E-CON. E-CHNG would combine the forms for changing a registered office or company name (INC-4, INC-22, INC-23 and INC-24), while E-CON would combine the forms for conversions, approvals and tribunal orders (including INC-6, INC-12, INC-18, INC-27 and RD-1). The draft also raises the director limit at incorporation, makes registered-office verification risk-based, and makes some registrations optional at the time of incorporation. Because the rules were still a draft and had not been notified as of 23 July 2026, companies must keep filing the existing forms until the final version appears in the Gazette.
This article sets out what the Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026 propose, which forms merge into E-CHNG and E-CON, what else changes, and what company secretaries and founders should do now.
The draft sits inside the Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ longer push to cut the number of forms a company files over its lifetime. The last decade moved incorporation from a stack of separate applications to the single SPICe+ web form, and the 2026 draft carries that logic into the post-incorporation filings that companies use far more often.
Those post-incorporation filings are the everyday work of a company secretary: shifting a registered office, changing a name, converting an entity, or reporting a tribunal order. Consolidating them touches almost every active company at some point, not just new ones. The new-company incorporation route through SPICe+ stays largely as it is.
One caution runs through everything below. This is a proposal open for consultation, not a rule in force, so the practical advice for now is to read it, plan for it, and keep filing exactly as you do today.
Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026: where the draft stands
The rules are a draft, not law in force.
Are the Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026 in force yet?
No. The Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026 are a draft. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs put out a public notice and explanatory note on 8 April 2026 (reference Policy-01/2/2025-CL-V-MCA-Part(2)), invited comments through the e-Consultation Module on its website until 9 May 2026, and had not published a final gazette notification as of 23 July 2026. Until that notification issues, the amendments have no legal effect.
That status matters because at least one online guide already describes the new forms as if they carried fixed fees and filing deadlines. They don’t, yet. A draft under Section 469 of the Companies Act, 2013, which is the rule-making power the Ministry is using here, only binds anyone once it is notified in the Official Gazette.
So what should you actually do while the draft is pending? Keep filing the forms you file today. If you need to shift a registered office this week, you file INC-22. If a client is changing its name, you file INC-24.
The consolidated forms E-CHNG and E-CON are not available on the MCA portal for filing, and won’t be until the rules are notified and the forms are deployed on the V3 system.
In practice, the gap between a draft and a live form can run to months. The Ministry has to read the comments, revise the text, notify the rules, and then build and test the forms on the portal. Worth flagging: the comment window has already closed, so the next visible step is the notification itself.
A question practitioners keep raising is whether a filing made now, under the old forms, becomes invalid once the new rules arrive. It does not. A form filed and taken on record under the rules in force on the filing date stays valid; amendment rules apply going forward, not to completed filings.
What is the Ministry trying to achieve with this draft?
The Ministry frames the exercise around ease of doing business. Its stated aim, in the public notice, is to streamline the incorporation process, reduce the compliance burden on stakeholders, and rationalise the filing framework under the Companies Act, 2013. Fewer forms, less duplication, and a lighter touch on verification are the throughline.
The reasoning is practical. A company that wants to shift its registered office across state lines today may touch three separate forms and a Regional Director order along the way. Collapsing related actions into one multi-part form cuts the number of separate submissions, attachments, and fee events. And a regulator that asks for the same director details twice, once in SPICe+ and again in a consent form, is doing work it can drop.
There’s a second-order effect worth naming. When verification moves from mandatory to risk-based and several registrations become optional, the compliance workload shifts from routine form-filling toward judgement: deciding what to file, what to keep on record, and where the risk actually sits. That tends to raise the value of considered advice over box-ticking.
Which forms should you still be filing today?
The forms in force today remain the only forms you can file today. INC-22 for a registered office, INC-24 for a name change, INC-23 for a registered office shift needing Regional Director approval, INC-6 for a One Person Company conversion, INC-27 for a public-to-private or private-to-public conversion, and RD-1 for a Regional Director application all stay live.
The safest way to track the change is to watch two places. The e-Gazette carries the final notification, and the MCA V3 portal is where the new forms will appear once built. Until both line up, treat E-CHNG and E-CON as planning information, not filing instructions.
Which forms merge into the consolidated e-form E-CHNG?
E-CHNG would consolidate the forms a company uses to change its registered office or its name. The Ministry’s own release names four existing forms folded into it: INC-4, INC-22, INC-23 and INC-24. Each covers a distinct action today, and the draft proposes to run them through a single multi-part form instead.
Think of E-CHNG as the “changes” form. The reported structure runs across several parts, one per scenario, so a filer picks the relevant part rather than selecting a separate form. That design is why the count of parts can exceed the count of legacy forms: a single form like INC-22, which already serves more than one registered-office scenario, can spread across more than one part.
The reader who files these today will recognise every entry. What changes is the wrapper, not the underlying approvals: a name change still needs central government approval, and an inter-state registered office shift still needs a Regional Director order. Would the substance of those approvals change? On the current draft, no; the merger is about the filing vehicle.
What does each form E-CHNG would replace do today?
Each legacy form inside E-CHNG maps to a specific transaction under the Companies Act, 2013. The table below sets out what each does now, so you can see which of your filings would move into the consolidated form.
| Legacy form | What it does today |
|---|---|
| INC-4 | Records a change of the member or nominee of a One Person Company, tied to the OPC definition in Section 2(62) of the Companies Act, 2013 |
| INC-22 | Gives notice of the situation of, or a change in, the registered office under Section 12 of the Companies Act, 2013 |
| INC-23 | Applies to the Regional Director to shift the registered office from one state to another, an alteration of the memorandum under Section 13 of the Companies Act, 2013 |
| INC-24 | Applies for central government approval to change the company name, again under Section 13 |
A common point of confusion is the mapping itself. Secondary write-ups disagree at the edges, with one portal placing INC-20 and RD-1 inside E-CHNG. The Ministry’s release lists the four forms above, so that is the set we rely on here; the final notification will settle any remaining doubt.
In practice, the everyday filings that land in E-CHNG are the registered-office notice and the name change. Those two account for most of what a company secretary files under this head in a typical year, which is why a single, well-built change form would save real time if the approvals behind it stay quick.
Eleven forms into two: E-CHNG and E-CON
Mapping as proposed in the draft. The final notification governs.
- INC-4: change of OPC member or nominee
- INC-22: registered office notice
- INC-23: RD approval to shift office across states
- INC-24: name-change approval
- INC-6: OPC conversion
- INC-12: Section 8 licence
- INC-18: Section 8 conversion
- INC-20: Section 8 licence surrender
- INC-27: public/private conversion
- INC-28: court or tribunal order
- RD-1: Regional Director application
Which forms merge into the consolidated e-form E-CON?
E-CON would consolidate the forms used for conversions, approvals and tribunal orders. As proposed, it folds in seven existing forms: INC-6, INC-12, INC-18, INC-20, INC-27, INC-28 and RD-1. This is the “conversion and orders” companion to E-CHNG, and it carries the heavier, less frequent filings.
One honest caveat belongs here. The four-form E-CHNG list comes straight from the Ministry’s release, but the seven-form E-CON list is drawn from professional analyses of the draft rather than a line the Ministry quoted publicly. Those analyses agree with each other, yet the authoritative text is the draft notification, and the final rules govern. We flag it rather than smooth it over.
Why bundle conversions and orders together? Because they share a pattern: each is an occasional, often approval-heavy event rather than a routine notice. A company converts once, applies to a Regional Director rarely, and files a tribunal order only when a court or the National Company Law Tribunal has passed one. Grouping them keeps the routine “changes” form lean.
What does each form E-CON would replace do today?
The forms inside E-CON cover conversions and approvals across several company types. The table shows the current function of each, so you can see which occasional filings would consolidate.
| Legacy form | What it does today |
|---|---|
| INC-6 | Converts a One Person Company into another company, or another company into an OPC, a conversion under Section 18 of the Companies Act, 2013 |
| INC-12 | Applies for a licence for a company with charitable objects under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 |
| INC-18 | Applies to the Regional Director to convert a Section 8 company into another kind of company |
| INC-20 | Intimates the revocation or surrender of a Section 8 licence |
| INC-27 | Converts a public company into a private company, or a private company into a public company |
| INC-28 | Gives notice of an order of a court, the Tribunal, or a competent authority |
| RD-1 | Files an application to the Regional Director for the approvals routed through that office |
Notice how varied the head is. A Section 8 charitable company, a One Person Company, and a listed public company, which sit among the types of companies under the Companies Act, 2013, can each file into E-CON, but for entirely different actions. That breadth is the point of a consolidated form, and it is also why the part you choose inside the form will matter more than the form name.
The mistake to avoid is treating E-CON as a single new procedure. It is a container for several existing procedures, each with its own approval path. A conversion still runs through the substantive test the Act sets for that conversion; the form does not change the law behind it.
How does the “nine forms into two” claim add up?
The headline figure needs a second look. Coverage of the draft often says “nine forms into two,” yet the named forms across E-CHNG and E-CON total around eleven. The gap is not a contradiction so much as a counting choice.
Two things drive it. First, RD-1 shows up as the generic Regional Director application, and different write-ups place it in one form or both, which shifts the count. Second, a multi-part form can absorb a single legacy form across more than one part, so “parts” and “forms” don’t line up one to one. The cleaner way to hold it in your head is by function: one form for changes to office and name, one form for conversions, approvals and orders.
For a company secretary, the exact tally is less important than the mapping. What you need to know is which of your recurring filings lands in which consolidated form, and that is set by the transaction, not by the arithmetic in a news summary.
How the new forms would change three common filings
The clearest way to see the impact is to follow three filings that come up most often in practice. Each shows the current route and the route the draft proposes, so you can judge what would actually get shorter. None of this is live yet; it is a preview of the mechanics.
Across all three, one thing holds steady. The approvals sitting behind these actions, the Regional Director order, the central government sign-off, the tribunal’s direction, do not disappear in the draft. What the consolidation changes is how many separate forms and submissions you touch to reach them.
How would you shift a registered office across states, old route versus E-CHNG?
Shifting a registered office from one state to another is the heaviest of the three today. A company alters its memorandum under Section 13, applies to the Regional Director in INC-23 for approval, and then files INC-22 to record the new situation of the office once the order is in hand. That is two forms and an order, in sequence.
Under the draft, these steps would run through E-CHNG, with the relevant parts covering the Regional Director application and the office notice. The approval logic stays: an inter-state shift still needs the Regional Director’s order. What the draft targets is the number of separate filings around that order.
There’s a related relaxation worth noting. The draft proposes to allow a registered office shift even while an inquiry or investigation is pending, subject to the board giving an undertaking, where today such a move is harder to make. One analysis reads the draft as still barring this for companies under insolvency proceedings, so that carve-out is a point to confirm against the final text.
A pitfall shows up here for companies mid-transaction. If you have an INC-23 already pending when the rules are notified, treat it as governed by the rules in force when you filed, and confirm the transition position from the notification rather than assuming the old application simply carries over into a new form.
How would you convert an OPC or a private or public company, old route versus E-CON?
Conversions run through E-CON in the draft. Founders weighing structure before they reach this stage often start by comparing an LLP with a private limited company. A One Person Company converting today files INC-6, and a public-to-private or private-to-public conversion files INC-27, each conversion answering to the substantive tests in Section 18 and the related provisions. These become parts within the consolidated conversion form.
The draft pairs the form change with two substantive relaxations for One Person Companies. It proposes to drop the affidavit that an OPC files on conversion, and to replace the criminal liability that Rule 7A attaches to a failure to convert with a civil penalty instead. That second change matters: it moves a compliance lapse out of the criminal frame and into a monetary one.
Can an OPC now simply avoid converting into a private limited company? Not exactly. The obligation to convert on crossing the thresholds does not vanish; what softens is the consequence of getting it wrong, from a criminal exposure to a penalty. The better reading is that the draft lowers the stakes of a delay, not the duty itself.
How would you change a company name, old INC-24 route versus E-CHNG?
A name change today starts with reserving the new name, usually through the RUN service or SPICe+ Part A, and then filing INC-24 for central government approval of the change under Section 13. The reserved name and the approval are two separate touchpoints. E-CHNG would carry the approval step as one of its parts.
The draft adds a useful option on the reservation side. A new proviso in Rule 9A would let an applicant withdraw a reserved name before the incorporation or the name change goes through, which today is awkward to do cleanly. That helps a company that reserves a name, then changes course before filing.
The trap to watch is timing. A reserved name has a limited life, and if it lapses before you file the change, you are back to reserving again. That risk is the same under the current forms and the draft, so build the reservation window into the plan rather than leaving the filing to the last day.
What else changes beyond the consolidated e-forms?
Beyond the two consolidated forms, the draft rewrites several rules that matter on their own. It is easy to conflate these with the form merger, but they are separate strands, and some of them touch every incorporation rather than only office-and-name changes. Here is the map of the substantive changes people most often ask about.
Taken together, these read as a set of small frictions removed rather than a single big reform. Do any of them change the character of Indian company incorporation? Not fundamentally; they trim steps, widen what documents count, and move some checks from mandatory to discretionary.
How would the name-reservation rules change?
The draft reworks the name rules in Rule 8 and its neighbours. Rule 8, which governs how a proposed name is judged for availability, would be redrafted in simpler and clearer language, framed with international practice in mind. Rule 8A, which deals with names that run into trademark objections, would be recast with worked examples so applicants can see how the test applies.
Rule 9A gains the withdrawal option described earlier, letting an applicant pull back a reserved name before the incorporation or change completes. For anyone who has reserved a name and then had a founder or investor push for a different one, that is a practical fix. The reservation stops being a one-way door.
What would change for directors at incorporation?
Two director-side changes stand out. The draft raises the number of directors who can be allotted a Director Identification Number through SPICe+ at incorporation from three to five, so a company forming with a larger initial board doesn’t have to run a separate DIN process for the extra directors. It also streamlines how proposed directors consent.
Consent gets lighter in two ways. A subscriber to the memorandum who is also a proposed director would be deemed to have consented, removing a duplicate declaration, and other proposed directors could consent through OTP-based authentication rather than a separate signed form. The draft also proposes to omit DIR-12 for first directors under Rule 17, on the ground that SPICe+ already captures those particulars.
Does the higher DIN cap affect directors already appointed? No. The change is about how many DINs can be issued through the incorporation form for a new company; existing directors and their existing DINs are untouched. This is a start-of-life convenience, not a board-wide reset.
How would registered-office proof and verification change?
The registered-office rules get two related changes, in Rule 25 and Rule 25B. On proof, the draft widens the documents a company can use to establish its registered office, expressly recognising owned, leased and co-working premises, and accepting a broader set such as title deeds, property-tax receipts, municipal khata records, allotment or possession letters, and utility bills. That reflects how startups actually take space.
On verification, the draft moves physical verification of the registered office from a mandatory step to a risk-based, discretionary one, with the Registrar able to use authorised persons and local witnesses where a check is warranted. If you run a company out of a co-working desk, what proof would you file? On the draft, a document from the recognised categories tied to that space, rather than a full commercial lease you may not have.
The downstream effect is subtle. Risk-based verification means the check is not gone; it is targeted. A company with a clean profile may never see a physical visit, while one that triggers a risk flag still can, so the paperwork you keep on file matters more than the form you submit.
What would change for OPCs and Section 8 companies?
One Person Companies get the conversion relaxations already covered: the affidavit drops away, and Rule 7A’s criminal consequence for a missed conversion becomes a civil penalty. For founders who use the OPC as a starter structure, that lowers the cost of a slip in timing.
Section 8 companies, the charitable and not-for-profit form under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013, gain flexibility too. The draft would permit a Section 8 company limited by guarantee to convert into one limited by shares under Rule 39, a route that was previously closed, and it trims some of the licence documentation. That opens a structural option that non-profits with a trading arm have long wanted.
Which smaller procedural changes should you know?
A few smaller changes round out the draft. A new Rule 23B addresses what happens when a subscriber to the memorandum dies before paying for the shares subscribed: the subscriber’s legal representatives step into the subscription and its unpaid-share obligations. It closes a gap that used to create uncertainty at the very start of a company’s life.
Two more are worth keeping on the radar. Several registrations bundled into AGILE-PRO-S, including EPFO, ESIC and the bank account, would become optional at incorporation rather than mandatory, so a company can choose when to take them. And statutory notices that go out by post would move from Registered Post to Speed Post and email, with the KYC and documentation for subscribers and directors rationalised under Rule 16.
Is making EPFO and ESIC optional a purely good thing? Not for everyone. A company that skips them at incorporation still has to register when the employee thresholds are crossed, so the option saves paperwork for a genuine early-stage startup but can create a tracking task for one that hires quickly. Treat it as a timing choice, not a permanent exemption.
How does this fit the SPICe+, RUN and MCA V3 filing system?
The amendment sits on top of the existing MCA filing stack rather than replacing it, so it helps to see where each piece fits.
SPICe+ is the integrated web form used to incorporate a company on the V3 portal. RUN reserves a name. AGILE-PRO-S handles the linked tax and labour registrations. The 2026 draft mostly touches what happens after incorporation, plus the options inside AGILE-PRO-S.
Reading the draft against that stack, the split is clean. New-company incorporation through SPICe+ carries on much as before, with the main incorporation-time changes being the higher DIN cap, the lighter director consent, and the optional AGILE-PRO-S registrations. The consolidation into E-CHNG and E-CON lands squarely on the post-incorporation change and conversion forms.
Does the amendment change SPICe+ itself?
Largely, no. SPICe+ stays the front door for forming a company, in two parts: Part A reserves the name and Part B carries the incorporation, bundling services such as DIN, PAN, TAN and the linked registrations. For a step-by-step view of that route, LawSikho’s guide to private limited company registration walks through the SPICe+ filing in detail. The draft adjusts a few inputs to that form rather than rebuilding it.
A recurring question is whether MGT-14 still sits in the picture. For incorporation itself, SPICe+ already folds in the filings that used to sit outside it, and the resolutions a company must file with the Registrar in specific situations continue under their own provisions; the draft’s focus is the incorporation and post-incorporation forms, not the resolution-filing regime. RUN, meanwhile, keeps doing what it does: a name reservation that feeds either a fresh incorporation or a later change.
How MCA’s form rationalisation has evolved
The direction of travel is a decade old. The Ministry introduced SPICe as a simplified incorporation form in 2016, folded name reservation, DIN, PAN, TAN and linked registrations into the broader SPICe+ and AGILE-PRO set-up in 2020, and moved company filings onto the V3 portal, with incorporation forms filed on V3 from 23 January 2023. Each step swapped several separate forms for fewer, wider ones.
The 2026 draft is the next step in that arc, carrying the “fewer, multi-part web forms” idea from incorporation into the change and conversion filings. Seen that way, E-CHNG and E-CON are less a break than a continuation, and the practitioner who lived through the SPICe-to-SPICe+ shift already knows the pattern: one richer form replacing a family of narrow ones.
What company secretaries and founders should do now
What should company secretaries and founders do now?
Until the rules are notified, the practical answer is to change nothing about live filings and prepare for the transition. The draft is planning information. Acting on it as though it were law is the one clear mistake, and it is the mistake a few online guides invite. For the solo founders who make up much of this audience, the incorporation decision usually rides on a business one, so Skill Arbitrage’s guide to starting a consultancy business in India is a useful companion for that side of the call.
A short, concrete list covers the useful preparation:
- Keep filing the current forms. INC-22, INC-24, INC-23, INC-6, INC-27 and RD-1 remain the only forms you can file until E-CHNG and E-CON go live.
- Track the notification. Watch the e-Gazette for the final rules and the MCA V3 portal for the forms to appear; the two together mark the real switchover.
- Map your recurring filings to the new forms. Note which of your regular actions fall under E-CHNG (office and name changes) and which under E-CON (conversions, approvals, orders), so the transition is a relabelling exercise, not a scramble.
- Brief clients on the AGILE-PRO-S options. Where EPFO, ESIC and the bank account become optional, decide with each client whether to take them at incorporation or defer, and record the reason.
- Note that the comment window has closed. The consultation ran to 9 May 2026, so the lever now is preparation, not representation.
The mistake we see most often in transitions like this is treating a draft as a deadline. There is no filing due because of this draft, and no penalty for continuing with the current forms. The value in reading it early is planning room, not urgency.
What happens next if the rules are notified?
If the Ministry notifies the rules, the forms would be built and deployed on the V3 portal, most likely with a transition window and a set of MCA FAQs to guide the changeover. Early signals from the draft point to fewer, multi-part forms and lighter verification, in line with the decade-long trend. None of that is certain until the notification lands.
For the profession, the likely shift is in the mix of work rather than the volume. As routine verification becomes risk-based and several registrations turn optional, more of the value sits in advising on what to file and when, and less in filling identical forms. Practitioners expect the change-and-conversion filings to feel more like choosing the right part of one form than hunting for the right form among many.
Frequently asked questions
What are E-CHNG and E-CON, and when will they be available? E-CHNG and E-CON are the two consolidated e-forms proposed by the draft Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026. E-CHNG would carry registered-office and name changes; E-CON would carry conversions, approvals and tribunal orders. They are not available yet and will only go live once the rules are notified and the forms are deployed on the MCA V3 portal.
Which old MCA forms does E-CHNG replace? On the Ministry’s own release, E-CHNG folds in four forms: INC-4 (change of OPC member or nominee), INC-22 (registered office notice), INC-23 (Regional Director application to shift the registered office across states) and INC-24 (central government approval for a name change).
Which forms does E-CON replace? As proposed in analyses of the draft, E-CON consolidates INC-6, INC-12, INC-18, INC-20, INC-27, INC-28 and RD-1, covering OPC and public-private conversions, Section 8 licence matters, tribunal orders and Regional Director applications. Because this seven-form list is not a line the Ministry quoted publicly, treat it as the proposed mapping pending the final notification.
Can you still file INC-22, INC-24 or INC-23 after E-CHNG is notified? Once E-CHNG is notified and live, it is intended to replace those forms for the actions it covers, so new filings would move to E-CHNG. Until that point, INC-22, INC-24 and INC-23 remain the forms to file. The switchover date is set by the notification and the portal deployment, not by the draft.
What happens to forms already filed under the old rules? A form filed and taken on record under the rules in force on the filing date stays valid. Amendment rules apply going forward; they do not reopen or invalidate a completed filing. If a filing is pending when the rules change, confirm the transition position from the notification.
Should you have submitted a comment to MCA, and is the window still open? The consultation window closed on 9 May 2026, so the comment stage is over. Stakeholders who wanted to influence the text needed to file through the e-Consultation Module by that date. The next step now is the Ministry’s notification.
Is AGILE-PRO-S registration now optional at incorporation? The draft proposes to make several registrations bundled into AGILE-PRO-S, including EPFO, ESIC and the bank account, optional at incorporation rather than mandatory. That is a timing choice: a company that defers still has to register once the applicable employee thresholds are crossed.
Does the amendment change the SPICe+ new-company incorporation process? Not substantially. SPICe+ stays the route to incorporate a company, with a few input changes: a higher DIN cap of five at incorporation, lighter director consent through deemed consent and OTP authentication, and optional AGILE-PRO-S registrations. The consolidation into E-CHNG and E-CON targets post-incorporation forms.
How do the draft rules differ from the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014? The 2026 draft amends the 2014 rules rather than replacing them. It consolidates several change and conversion forms into E-CHNG and E-CON, redrafts the name rules in Rule 8 and Rule 8A, widens registered-office proof under Rule 25, makes verification risk-based under Rule 25B, and adjusts director, OPC and Section 8 provisions. The Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 remain the base text that the amendment edits.
Can an OPC now avoid converting into a private limited company? No. The obligation to convert on crossing the applicable thresholds remains. What the draft changes is the consequence of a lapse: it proposes to replace the criminal liability under Rule 7A with a civil penalty and to drop the conversion affidavit, which lowers the stakes of a delay rather than removing the duty.
If a co-working space is the registered office, what proof is required? The draft expressly recognises co-working premises and widens the acceptable proof, so a company could rely on documents tied to that space, such as an allotment or possession letter, a utility bill, or municipal records, rather than a full commercial lease. The exact list will follow the notified Rule 25.
Is physical verification of the registered office still mandatory? The draft moves physical verification from a mandatory step to a risk-based, discretionary one under Rule 25B. The Registrar can still verify where a risk flag warrants it, using authorised persons and local witnesses, so the check is targeted rather than automatic.
Where can you read the official MCA draft notification? The Ministry announced the draft through a public notice and explanatory note dated 8 April 2026, summarised in the government’s press release, and hosted the draft on its e-Consultation Module. The References section below links the official press release and points to the Gazette, where the final notification will appear.
References
Statutes and rules
- Companies Act, 2013 (sections referred to: 2(62), 8, 12, 13, 18, 469)
- Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 (the base rules amended by the 2026 draft)
Regulatory and primary sources
- Ministry of Corporate Affairs, public notice and explanatory note on the draft Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules, 2026, dated 8 April 2026 (ref. Policy-01/2/2025-CL-V-MCA-Part(2))
- Press Information Bureau release on the review of the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014 and rationalisation of the filing framework
- The Gazette of India, e-Gazette, for the final notification once published
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance, consult a qualified legal professional.
{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “Article”, “headline”: “Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026 and the consolidated e-form”, “description”: “Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026 would fold 11 MCA forms into E-CHNG and E-CON. See the full mapping and why the old forms still apply today.”, “author”: { “@type”: “Organization”, “name”: “iPleaders”, “url”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in” }, “publisher”: { “@type”: “Organization”, “name”: “iPleaders”, “logo”: { “@type”: “ImageObject”, “url”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/ipleaders1.png” } }, “datePublished”: “2026-07-23”, “dateModified”: “2026-07-23”, “mainEntityOfPage”: { “@type”: “WebPage”, “@id”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in/companies-incorporation-amendment-rules-2026/” }, “image”: “https://blog.ipleaders.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/companies-incorporation-amendment-rules-2026.png” } { “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [ { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What are E-CHNG and E-CON, and when will they be available?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “E-CHNG and E-CON are two consolidated e-forms proposed by the draft Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026. E-CHNG carries registered-office and name changes; E-CON carries conversions, approvals and orders. They go live only once the rules are notified and the forms are deployed on MCA V3.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Which old MCA forms does E-CHNG replace?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “On the Ministry’s release, E-CHNG folds in four forms: INC-4 (change of OPC member or nominee), INC-22 (registered office notice), INC-23 (Regional Director application to shift the registered office across states) and INC-24 (central government approval for a name change).” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Which forms does E-CON replace?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “As proposed in analyses of the draft, E-CON consolidates INC-6, INC-12, INC-18, INC-20, INC-27, INC-28 and RD-1, covering OPC and public-private conversions, Section 8 licence matters, tribunal orders and Regional Director applications. Treat this as the proposed mapping pending the final notification.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Can you still file INC-22, INC-24 or INC-23 after E-CHNG is notified?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Once E-CHNG is notified and live, it is intended to replace those forms for the actions it covers, so new filings would move to E-CHNG. Until then, INC-22, INC-24 and INC-23 remain the forms to file. The switchover date is set by the notification and portal deployment.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “What happens to forms already filed under the old rules?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “A form filed and taken on record under the rules in force on the filing date stays valid. Amendment rules apply going forward and do not reopen a completed filing. If a filing is pending when the rules change, confirm the transition position from the notification.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Should you have submitted a comment to MCA, and is the window still open?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The consultation window closed on 9 May 2026, so the comment stage is over. Stakeholders who wanted to influence the text needed to file through the e-Consultation Module by that date. The next step now is the Ministry’s notification.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Is AGILE-PRO-S registration now optional at incorporation?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The draft proposes to make several registrations bundled into AGILE-PRO-S, including EPFO, ESIC and the bank account, optional at incorporation rather than mandatory. That is a timing choice: a company that defers still has to register once the applicable employee thresholds are crossed.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Does the amendment change the SPICe+ new-company incorporation process?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Not substantially. SPICe+ stays the route to incorporate a company, with a few input changes: a higher DIN cap of five at incorporation, lighter director consent through deemed consent and OTP authentication, and optional AGILE-PRO-S registrations. The consolidation targets post-incorporation forms.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “How do the draft rules differ from the Companies (Incorporation) Rules, 2014?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The 2026 draft amends the 2014 rules rather than replacing them. It consolidates change and conversion forms into E-CHNG and E-CON, redrafts the name rules, widens registered-office proof, makes verification risk-based, and adjusts director, OPC and Section 8 provisions.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Can an OPC now avoid converting into a private limited company?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “No. The obligation to convert on crossing the applicable thresholds remains. The draft changes the consequence of a lapse: it proposes to replace the criminal liability under Rule 7A with a civil penalty and to drop the conversion affidavit, which lowers the stakes of a delay rather than removing the duty.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “If a co-working space is the registered office, what proof is required?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The draft expressly recognises co-working premises and widens the acceptable proof, so a company could rely on documents tied to that space, such as an allotment or possession letter, a utility bill, or municipal records, rather than a full commercial lease. The exact list follows the notified Rule 25.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Is physical verification of the registered office still mandatory?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The draft moves physical verification from a mandatory step to a risk-based, discretionary one under Rule 25B. The Registrar can still verify where a risk flag warrants it, using authorised persons and local witnesses, so the check is targeted rather than automatic.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Where can you read the official MCA draft notification?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “The Ministry announced the draft through a public notice and explanatory note dated 8 April 2026, summarised in the government’s press release, and hosted the draft on its e-Consultation Module. The final notification will appear in the e-Gazette.” } } ] }The post Companies (Incorporation) Amendment Rules 2026 and the consolidated e-form appeared first on iPleaders.
Source link
