The issue was whether higher depreciation on goods carriage vehicles could be disallowed during return processing. The Tribunal held that such debatable claims need scrutiny and cannot be adjusted under section 143(1).
The ITAT held that depreciation cannot be disallowed when ownership, usage, and actual cost of assets are undisputed. Mere suspicion about the source of funds is insufficient to deny statutory depreciation.
The issue was whether interest on INR-denominated CCDs should be benchmarked using LIBOR or domestic rates. The Tribunal held that PLR applies, rendering the transfer pricing adjustment unsustainable.
The issue was whether a short delay in filing an appeal justified outright dismissal. The Tribunal held that illness supported by medical evidence constituted reasonable cause and restored the appeal for merits adjudication.
The ROC imposed penalties for failure to mention CIN and contact details on official letterheads. The key takeaway is that statutory disclosures are mandatory regardless of public data availability.
The order reiterates that disclosure of CIN and contact details on official publications is compulsory and non-negotiable under company law.
The authority held that omission of CIN, email, and contact number on official documents violates section 12(3)(c). Even technical disclosure lapses attract penalties under section 12(8).
ROC held that failure to number pages in statutory minutes books violates Section 118. Even clerical lapses can invite penalties on both the company and its directors.
The order reiterates that acknowledgment of default or suo-motu disclosure does not exempt companies from penalties for statutory non-compliance.
Karnataka High Court held that demand of service tax on ocean freight on import services is liable to be quashed since the petitioner are not the recipient of service for the purpose of notification no. 3/2017-ST dated 12.01.2017.
