ITAT Hyderabad held that verifying documents of only one party cannot substitute verification of all transactions under Section 69C. The matter is remanded to the AO for de novo scrutiny of purchase bills, ledger accounts, transportation memos, and payment proofs for all thirteen parties.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted inconsistently by condoning delay in the quantum appeal but refusing the same in penalty appeals. Since sufficient cause existed and was already recognized, delay in all penalty appeals was condoned. Penalty matters were restored to the AO for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that CIT(A) misinterpreted a VSVS 2020 declaration for penalty as covering quantum, dismissing the appeal without considering merits. The order was set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo adjudication. Quantum issues must be assessed independently of VSVS for penalties.
The Tribunal held that AO’s ad-hoc disallowances were unsustainable as he failed to verify evidence. CIT(A) examined detailed ledgers and explanations, deleting unsupported additions. The appeal highlights the importance of evidence-based assessments over arbitrary estimates.
A company and its directors avoided penalties for late filing of financial statements after submitting them within thirty days of the show-cause notice, demonstrating compliance relief under Section 454(3).
A company and its directors were exempted from penalties for late filing of financial statements after rectifying the default within thirty days, highlighting the protective provision under Section 454(3).
ITAT Agra held that reassessment under Section 144 by JAO is valid even though faceless procedure under Section 144B was generally applicable. The CBDT Circular of 17.03.2022 provided relaxation for cases with expiring limitation. CIT(A)’s non-est finding was set aside, ensuring compliance with procedural exceptions.
A company and its director were penalised for failing to mention directors’ DINs in financial statements, highlighting the importance of accurate statutory disclosures under Section 158.
A company and its directors were penalised under the Companies Act for failing to hold a quarterly board meeting within the prescribed 120-day period, highlighting strict enforcement of Section 173 compliance.
MCA penalizes a company and its Managing Director for late filing of director resignation form DIR-12, emphasizing strict compliance under Section 172 of the Companies Act.
