ROC Mumbai imposes penalty on Hexaware Technologies and officers for late filing of Form MR-2 for appointment of non-resident whole-time director under Section 450 of Companies Act.
Advance rulings clarify tax liability for specific transactions. They are binding on taxpayers and authorities. Applications require fees based on transaction size, up to Rs. 10 Lacs, payable via demand draft. The Authority for Advance Rulings is replaced by the Board for Advance Rulings (BAR).
Delhi High Court held that bail application in GST fraudulent Input Tax Credit [ITC] matter is allowed since entire evidence has already been collected and there is little likelihood of tampering with evidence.
ITAT Pune reaffirmed that 15% accumulation permitted under Section 11(1)(a) must be computed on gross receipts. Revenue’s argument restricting it to surplus was rejected, relying on consistent rulings of Supreme Court and High Courts.
NCLT Delhi held that application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against M/s. Shriram Skill and Education Ltd. [Corporate Debtor] is admitted since debt and default duly proved. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed.
Notification 18/2025 speeds up GST registration with Rule 9A’s 3-day electronic approval for low-risk applicants. It also introduces the Rule 14A simplified scheme for small taxpayers (monthly tax $\leq$ ₹2.5L), easing compliance for new and micro-businesses.
ITAT sustained PCIT’s revisional order under Section 263, ruling that AO’s mechanical acceptance of a low profit margin return without proper inquiry was both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue’s interest. AO failed to examine applicability of mandatory audit under Section 44AB and correctness of declared profit ratio in liquor trade.
Pune ITAT significantly reduced Section 14A disallowance, ruling that administrative expenses relating to a proprietary concern with no investments must be excluded from computation. ITAT applied a reasonable estimate of Rs.10 lakh after finding expenses like depreciation and property tax had no nexus with earning exempt income.
The High Court set aside the ex-parte assessment and appeal order, granting the partnership firm another opportunity to respond to the Section 148 notice. The ruling accepts the taxpayer’s non-response as due to bona fide, unavoidable circumstances.
Karnataka High Court set aside the ex-parte reassessment (u/s 147 and 144) because all preceding notices (including 148A) were mailed to taxpayer’s outdated address. HC found merit in bona fide non-receipt due to address change and remanded matter for fresh consideration.
