No, that is not correct.
I have broken my leg (without the yesterday) can be used in two situations that I can think of:
1) "I have broken my leg four times in the last year!"
In this case it means that your leg was broken at four different times in the past year, but it doesn't necessarily say your leg is broken now. I might be broken now or it might not; it doesn't imply anything either way.
2) "I've broken my leg!"
I can see this being said as a surprised exclamation at the moment your leg is broken. As in, "Oh my god, my leg just broke!" This means that, at this moment, you have just broken your leg. Now whether or not anyone is coherent enough to actually say this when they break their leg is another matter, but it would be valid at the time if they did say it.
Now, if you broke your leg yesterday, you cannot accurately say "I have broken my leg." Your leg is currently broken, yes, but we say:
I broke my leg yesterday.
The action of breaking occurred yesterday, so you use the past when talking about it. If you want a sentence in the present, you can say something like this:
My leg is broken; I had an accident yesterday.
The two phrases you gave,
- The time has come for you to take over the company.
- It is time for you to take over the company.
have the same meaning, but the first is more poetic. It might be correct to say the first phase is an idiom. It's true that you have the present perfect of an active verb "to come" but the subject doing the action is "time". What? Time can't do anything!
After I first read your question I was thinking of a song I heard long ago which repeated the phrase "the time has come," and it turns out I was thinking of the 1987 song "Beds are Burning" by the Australian rock band Midnight Oil. But the search engine completion options reminded me of an example from a century earlier, which is from a poem that appears in the novel Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll:
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—-and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings."
Now at the risk of stating the obvious, a marine mammal of the species Odobenus rosmarus is speaking in this stanza. Oh, and the novel is about a 7-year-old girl called Alice who climbs up on the mantel above her fireplace where there is a mirror (that is, a "looking-glass") hanging on the wall. She finds to her surprise that she is able to step through the mirror, and she goes on to explore the world on the other side of the mirror.
In this case the poetic "metrical foot" contains two syllables with stress on the second. Each line has eight syllables which equals four feet, and for example in the first line the stress is on time, come, Wal-, and said.
Maybe the Walrus was not speaking grammatically correct and the first line should read,
"It is time," the Walrus said,
but that really doesn't work because now the line has the wrong number of syllables, and neither of the first two syllables is stressed. It completely mangles the poem.
So in this example, the Walrus must say "the time has come" for poetic reasons, not for grammatical reasons.
I don't know if Through the Looking Glass is the first place where "the time has come" was used to mean "it is time." But I can imagine that Australian rockers had heard of Lewis Carroll, or that other songwriters who have used the same phrase read the novel as children.
Best Answer
We use the past with a dead person's achievements, and the past with a live person's actions that took place at a point-in-time in the past, that is, when we're referring to them in the aspect of when they took place, rather than as an achievement of the living person.
But you needn't think of the choice of tense in terms of these non-temporal "buckets" (achievements, inventions, etc). The determining factor is whether the statement refers to the action as having taken place in the past, or refers to it in a more nuanced way, as something that took place in the past but which is seen from the point of view of its bearing upon some aspect of the present.