IFSCA consultation proposes immediate amendments to banking credit restrictions for IFSC units. Changes include stricter Basel-aligned rules for director advances and allowing loans for security buy-backs.
ROC Goa imposed an ₹8 lakh penalty on INDU PACKAGING (DAMAN) LIMITED and its directors for violating Section 197 by paying excess managerial remuneration in FY 2018-19.
CESTAT Delhi held that penalty under section 114AA of the Customs Act can duly be imposed for mis-declaration in imports. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 imposed u/s. 114AA is modest since the same doesn’t exceed five time the value of goods.
The Labour Ministry clarified EPFO reforms, which simplify withdrawals by merging 13 provisions into three, reducing eligibility to 12 months, and allowing 75% withdrawal immediately for greater ease and financial security.
The ITAT instantly dismissed the Revenues appeal because it only challenged the merits of additions, not the CIT(A)s core finding that the reassessment notice was time-barred. When the foundation of the reassessment is quashed and that ruling isnt appealed, all subsequent additions automatically collapse.
ITAT Kolkata held that issuance of reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act expiry of specified period of limitation is time barred and hence invalid and bad-in-law. Accordingly, appeal of assessee is allowed and notice is quashed.
The Supreme Court restored just compensation for the family of a deceased engineer, ruling that for MACT claims, income must include all emoluments and allowances, not just basic pay and DA, correcting the High Courts exclusion. The ruling mandates calculating income tax based on actual statutory slabs, rejecting arbitrary flat deductions, and applying the mandatory 50% future prospects for permanent employees under 40.
ROC Goa imposed penalties on a company and its directors for failing to file Financial Statements for FY 2023-24. The ruling reinforces directors’ personal liability under Section 137(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the importance of timely compliance.
The ITAT deleted a Rs.1.30 crore addition, ruling that the reassessment was invalid because the reason for reopening (payments made by the assessee) was entirely different from the reason for the final addition (loan received by the assessee). The Tribunal held that an addition made on a new, unrecorded reason renders the reassessment proceedings unsustainable in law.
ITAT Kolkata held that passing of reassessment order without issuing any notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and not jurisdictional. Accordingly, order quashed and addition is deleted.
