Failure to spend CSR funds or transfer unspent amounts within timelines was held to violate sections 135(5) and (6). Subsequent voluntary payment did not absolve liability, attracting penalties under section 135(7).
Failure to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 14(6). The ROC imposed penalties under section 450, underscoring strict disclosure requirements.
Non-filing of MGT-15 for two financial years was held to violate section 121. Officers were penalised despite the company being under liquidation.
The Tribunal examined whether revision under section 263 could survive when the show-cause notice was issued to an entity that had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation. It held that proceedings against a non-existent entity are void ab initio, rendering the revision order invalid.
ROC Chennai held that listed companies must appoint an internal auditor under Section 138. Non-compliance over multiple years resulted in penalties on directors.
ROC Chennai held that non-filing of the secretarial audit report violates Section 204. Directors were penalised for prolonged non-compliance across multiple years.
The court held that advocates cannot be compelled to disclose how they obtained documents filed for clients, reaffirming attorney–client privilege under evidence law.
The Tribunal reaffirmed that reassessment cannot be based on re-appreciation of facts already scrutinized earlier. Without failure of disclosure, invoking Section 147 beyond four years was invalid.
The Tribunal held that completed assessments cannot be disturbed under section 153C without incriminating material found during search. Additions based solely on third-party data were ruled invalid.
The Tribunal ruled that repeated reopening cannot survive where statutory timelines are breached. A reassessment initiated beyond the permissible surviving period was quashed in entirety.
