The ITAT held that an assessment made in the name of an amalgamated company is void ab initio, even where proceedings continued after merger intimation.
The Tribunal held that a Section 148A(d) order passed by a jurisdictional AO after the faceless notification is without legal authority. Any reassessment founded on such an order is void for want of jurisdiction.
The Tribunal ruled that post-notification reassessment notices must strictly follow the faceless assessment framework. Issuance by a jurisdictional AO renders the notice without authority and the reassessment unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that where reassessment is based solely on search material found during a third-party search, proceedings must be initiated under section 153C. Reopening under section 147 was held to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
The Registrar penalised a company for missing mandatory disclosures in share allotment filings. The order clarifies that even inadvertent procedural lapses attract penalties, though relief may apply to eligible start-ups.
The order holds that missing mandatory disclosures in share issue filings violate Section 62 read with Rule 13. Even inadvertent procedural lapses can trigger penalties under the residual provision of the Companies Act.
The adjudicating authority held that filing an AOC-4 with incorrect particulars attracts penalty even if the error is later admitted and rectified. Administrative correction does not nullify the completed contravention under the Companies Act.
Following judicial criticism of delayed appeals, officers urged structural reforms to fix institutional gaps rather than penalising individual officers.
With repeated technical failures hampering compliance, officers requested formal absolution from blame. The letter emphasizes collective institutional responsibility over individual accountability.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations cannot be denied merely due to technical lapses like student collection or minor PAN errors. Donor intent and consistent treatment in books were sufficient to allow exemption under section 11(1)(d).
