The ITAT held that a reassessment notice issued manually by the JAO violates the mandatory Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Tribunal ruled that any Section 148 or 148A notice must originate only from the faceless system, making the JAO-issued notice invalid.
ITAT held that Section 69 cannot apply when the assessee is not proved to own the cash. Unrebutted affidavits established the source, and mere suspicion cannot justify an addition.
This order highlights penalties for failing to keep private placement application money in a separate bank account. It clarifies that both the company and directors are collectively liable under Section 42(10).
Tribunal held that an investment already assessed substantively in another person’s hands cannot again be taxed under Section 69. The case was remanded to avoid double taxation and ensure consistent adjudication.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an application solely for delayed filing was improper and directed a denovo review under Section 80G. The is that delayed applications may still be examined on merits.
ROC Mumbai penalizes a company and its directors ₹1,00,000 each for failing to maintain a registered office under Section 12(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
The amendment raises capital and turnover limits to the highest ever, enabling more companies to qualify for reduced compliance. expanded thresholds unlock major regulatory and cost benefits.
Tribunal held that a reassessment cannot be triggered solely on another person’s search statement. With no evidence against the assessee, the 147 proceedings and bogus-purchase addition were struck down.
Justo Realfintech Limited and its directors fined for failing to keep application money in a separate bank account under Section 42(6) of the Companies Act.
NFAC’s ex-parte dismissal of large 54F claim overturned due to procedural lapses and miscommunication. Assessee granted fresh opportunity to substantiate ₹3.10 Cr exemption claim.
