esar Enterprises Ltd. Vs State of U.P. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- In the present case, before imposing the impugned demand of penalty and interest, there was absolutely no adjudication by any authority as regards the breach committed by the appellant, except the allegation that the appellant had failed to furnish the PD-25 pass certified by the Collector. In our opinion, therefore, the action of the respondents for the recovery of penalty and interest, being violative of principles of natural justice, is null and void.
CIT Vs Shri Prem Gandhi (Delhi High Court)- In view of retrospective amendment in Sec 132(1), the Tribunal order stating that Addl Director has no powers to issue warrant for authorisation of search, does not survive. Assessee can be allowed to raise a fresh ground of no-service of notice u/s 143(2) before the Tribunal as this issue was argued before the CIT(A).
The fiduciary capacity within which directors have to act enjoins duty upon them to act on behalf of the company with utmost care and skill and due diligence and in the interest of the company. More so, in a family company where even directorial complaints can be looked into. Directors have a duty to make full and honest disclosures to shareholders regarding all important matters relating to the company. In the present case a clear case of oppression has been made out, even a single act can cause continuous oppression.
The Government has not made it compulsory for every company to have a policy for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). However, the Department of Public Enterprises has issued comprehensive CSR guidelines for Central Public Sector Enterprises in April, 2010 wherein these enterprises, except those making a loss, have to create mandatorily, through a board resolution, a CSR budget as a specified percentage of net profit of the previous year.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee and its directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore, dated 30-11-2009 for the assessment year 2 008-09. The assessee is aggrieved by the CIT(A) in considering the assessee as assessee is default u/s 201(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assessee has failed to deduct tax at source u/s 195 of the Act on the payments made by it to ING Zurich for purchase of shrink wrapped software from outside India. The AO considered the said payment as royalty under the Act as well as the DTAA between India and Switzerland.
Since 2006, the Ministry has implemented MCA-21, an e- Governance project, bringing greater transparency as the data available in the public domain can be viewed by any person. The Ministry has also evolved System to help in detecting likely fraud at an early state. In the process of development of Early Warning System (EWS), the Ministry has identified certain Risk Parameters which can be run on the data available with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on financial statements furnished by the companies in e-forms developed by the Ministry.
The conditions for export were prior registration of contracts with DGFT on a first-come-first-served basis subject to: (i) Export shall be made from privately held stocks. (ii) Applications for allotment must be accompanied with irrevocable and confirmed letter of credit , (iii) An applicant must submit a performance bank guarantee(BG), along with the application for a value equivalent to a value of 10% of applied quantity. In case of non-completion of exports, within the stipulated time frame, this bank guarantee is liable to be confiscated. A flexibility of + or – 5% in performance is allowed.
One case of M/s. Speak-Asia Online Pte, a foreign company, has come to the notice of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is a multi-level marketing company. As per preliminary enquiry, it is found that the company is not registered under the Companies Act, 1956. Besides, the company has also not registered its place of business with the Registrar of Companies,
VIP Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE (Bombay High Court) -High Court has [de hors of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944] power to review its own decision rendered in appeal filed under the Act. Ordinary Courts which have been seized of a dispute in respect of a legal right or liability under a special enactment, should be regarded as having power to adjudicate such dispute according to the ordinary rules of practice and procedure which would include the power to review judgements and orders.
ACIT Vs Hotel Blue Moon (Supreme Court of India)- However, if an assessment is to be completed under Section 143(3) read with Section 158-BC, notice under Section 143(2) should be issued within one year from the date of filing of block return. Omission on the part of the assessing authority to issue notice under Section 143(2) cannot be a procedural irregularity and the same is not curable and, therefore, the requirement of notice under Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with. The other important feature that requires to be noticed is that the Section 158 BC(b) specifically refers to some of the provisions of the Act which requires to be followed by the assessing officer while completing the block assessments under Chapter XIV-B of the Act.
