ROC Kanpur penalized Chen Junfeng of Zu Moulds ₹50,000 under Section 450 for failing to file the DIR-3 KYC form, leading to DIN deactivation. Director must rectify and pay within 90 days.
Madras High Court held that petitioner has placed on record sufficient evidence proving financial capability of partners for capital contribution. Accordingly, order set aside and matter remanded back for reconsideration.
CESTAT Kolkata held that Customs Broker cannot be held responsible for violations of overvaluation committed by exporters. Accordingly, order revoking license of Customs Broker cannot be sustained. In the result, appeal is allowed.
ITAT Hyderabad held that cash deposit on account of family settlement needs to be proved with documentary evidences like family settlement deed or relinquishment of property right etc. Matter restored with direction to assessee to submit relevant proof.
ROC Kanpur levied a ₹5 lakh penalty on EAST ALPHA ALLIANCE TECHNOLOGY and two directors for failing to file the mandated DIR-12 form after a director’s resignation.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act rightly disallowed since donation was given to Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust whose approval expired on 31.03.2006. Accordingly, appeal of assessee dismissed.
ITAT Pune held that sum has been received for work relating to interior and other finishing work and total consideration is received through banking channel. Hence, there is no violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act. Hence, penalty u/s. 271D not leviable. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
ITAT Raipur held that addition towards unexplained credits on estimated basis should be the average GP rate from the preceding 3 years. In the present case the same is taken as 5% without any basis. Accordingly, matter restored back to file of AO.
ITAT Hyderabad held that condition of investment to the corpus donation in mode prescribed under section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act is effective only from 01/04/2022. Hence the said condition is not applicable in the relevant year. In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.
The ITAT deleted the addition, finding that the assessee fulfilled the Section 54F condition by investing the entire sale proceeds and acquiring legally enforceable rights in the property well before the two-year deadline. The key takeaway is that a delay in the execution of the final registered agreement, caused by the builder, cannot be held against the taxpayer.
