Bombay High Court held that issuance of notice for demand of interest and penalty after obtaining discharge certificate under Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 [SVLDRS] is not tenable in law. Writ disposed of, accordingly.
Bombay High Court held that interest under section 25(4) of the GVAT on delayed payment of VAT on sales of High Bouquet Spirit (HBS)/Rectified Spirit (RS)/Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) justifiable in spite of uncertainty with regard to levy to be imposed on the same.
The adjudicating authority held that non-affixation of the company’s name at its registered office violates Section 12, warranting penalties on the company and directors.
The revision questioned deduction on interest income allowed under section 80P. The Tribunal held that where the AO adopts a legally plausible view after enquiry, section 263 cannot be invoked.
The adjudicating authority imposed the statutory maximum penalty after holding that non-filing of INC-22 for years violated Section 12 of the Companies Act.
The authority held that not maintaining a functional registered office violates Section 12, justifying the statutory maximum penalty on the company and directors.
ROC held that appointing an Independent Director for a third consecutive term violates section 149(11). Even voluntary disclosure did not shield the company and officers from maximum penalties under section 172.
Non-filing of mandatory board resolutions approving accounts led to monetary penalties. The order reiterates that approval of accounts must be promptly reported to the regulator.
The Revenue treated entire cash deposits as unexplained under section 69A. The Tribunal held that in an unorganised business, deposits can be treated as turnover with estimated profits.
ROC imposed the highest penalty for failure to file MGT-14 approving financial statements. The order reiterates strict enforcement of section 117 timelines.
