Syed Adeel Shah Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) It appears that in an earlier round of litigation wherein the appellants had challenged the notice issued by the respondents under Section 8(4) of the PMLA Act, learned writ court had declined to grant indulgence in favour of the appellants and the writ […]
Section 203(5) of Companies Act, 2013 imposes penalties for non-compliance with provision regarding appointment of a Whole-time Company Secretary
Watermarke Residency Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the present case, the TPO had benchmarked the transaction after treating the FCCDs as debt. This finding of TPO was based on Terms of issuance of FCCD and balance-sheets/ financials of the assessee as well as of it’s A.E, where both had mentioned FCCD as debt. We […]
As per theCompanies Act, 2013, if a company fails to comply with the provisions of Section 137 regarding the filing of financial statements and annual returns within the prescribed timeframe, the Adjudicating Authority (AA) has the power to impose penalties. However, if the company rectifies the default and files the required documents within 30 days […]
It is alleged that rather than exporting gold jewellery in terms of the obligation, the jewellery was diverted in the domestic market and in the process the offences were committed by the appellant.
Madhya Pradesh Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Indore) The assessee has challenged the penalty to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-levied under Section 271B of the Act. The assessee, a Government company, wherein appointment of Auditor in the case of the appellant was governed by the provision of section 619(2) of the Companies […]
KRBL Limited Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court) Court is of the view that the Respondents-Revenue have had sufficient time to file an appeal against the order of the ITAT. In any event, in accordance with the mandate of law, the appeal effect order has to be passed within three months of passing the appeal order. FULL […]
Samir Transport Company Vs C.C.E & S.T. (CESTAT Ahmedabad) In the present case the penalty was imposed on the appellants under Rule 26 (2) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. In connection with fraudulent passing of cenvat credit on the invoices issued by M/s Accord Industries Limited to M/s Archon Engicon Limited. The fact is not […]
It is very clear that the department has disposed of /sold the goods on the understanding that the first order of the adjudicating authority is the final order. At the same time the department was well aware about the pendency of the appeals before this Tribunal. Therefore the action of the department is clearly in gross violation of principles of natural justice, hence the same cannot be allowed to sustain.
In the present case the payment of anti dumping duty is not due to assessment or reassessment of Bills of entry but merely by a letter from the department, therefore there is nothing in the bills of entry to challenge.
