ROC Delhi levied penalties for not preparing and keeping minutes and attendance registers for seven board meetings, stressing the mandatory record-keeping requirements under Section 118.
The order holds directors liable for not providing mandatory interest disclosures in initial board meetings. Penalties were levied under Section 184(4) for procedural non-compliance.
The Tribunal ruled that penalties under Section 43 of BMA cannot be imposed for bona fide reporting mistakes when investments were from legitimate, disclosed funds.
The Tribunal ruled that once an assessment under Section 153A is approved under Section 153D, it cannot be revised under Section 263. This reinforces limits on PCIT’s revisional powers.
The Court held that bona fide purchasers are entitled to Input Tax Credit even if the seller fails to deposit tax, protecting compliant traders from undue liability.
The Tribunal held that reassessment under Section 148 was invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, affirming the CIT(A)’s order.
NCLT Kochi held that delay in filing bankruptcy application u/s. 123 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 condoned considering that compliance with Section 121(2) should be considered directory in nature. Accordingly, present appeal is allowed.
ITAT Mumbai held that section 50 does not convert a long-term capital asset to a short-term capital asset, then the rate of tax is applicable for the transfer of a long-term capital asset has to be in accordance with section 112. The deeming fiction of section 50 cannot be imported under section 112.
Allahabad High Court held that GST registration cannot be cancelled without issuing a mandatory notice in Form REG-17, even in cases of voluntary surrender, setting aside cancellation and appeal orders.
CESTAT Allahabad set aside a penalty imposed on a customs officer, holding that statements recorded under duress and without corroboration cannot be relied upon for conviction.
