Authorities held that failure to display a complete registered office address violated Section 12(3)(a) of the Companies Act. The case reinforces that even procedural lapses can attract the maximum statutory penalty if left unrectified.
ITAT Mumbai held that disallowance on account alleged fictitious trading loss in absence of any direct incriminating material is not sustainable. Accordingly, CIT(A) rightly deleted the disallowance and allowed the appeal of the assessee. Thus, the present appeal by revenue is dismissed.
The issue concerned duplication in registration processes for foreign investors. The circular allows simultaneous FPI and FVCI registration using the same information and intermediaries.
Madras High Court held that reassessment notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2014-2015 issued on 29.07.2022 issued under new regime is held to be in time. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.
A new framework simplifies registration, KYC, and renewals for select low-risk foreign investors. The move reduces compliance burden while strengthening India’s capital market accessibility.
A unified FEMA framework now governs goods, services, and merchanting trade. The ruling underscores streamlined procedures and greater operational flexibility for authorised dealers.
The issue was whether unsecured loans from directors routed through a partnership firm could be treated as unexplained cash credits. The Tribunal held that once identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness are proved through books and bank records, section 68 addition cannot survive.
The issue was whether adjustment of brought-forward loss and depreciation under MAT could be altered through rectification. The Tribunal held that such MAT computation involves interpretation and debate, making section 154 inapplicable.
The issue was whether revision could be made to examine disallowance under section 14A despite no exempt income being earned. The Tribunal held that without exempt income, the assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to revenue.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could dismiss an appeal ex-parte without giving detailed reasons. The Tribunal held that a non-speaking order violates section 250(6) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.
