The issue was failure to appoint a CFO after crossing the capital threshold. The takeaway is that delays in KMP appointments attract steep statutory penalties.
Missing mandatory allottee particulars in PAS-3 were held to violate Rule 14(6). The company and director were penalised under Section 450 despite prior rejection of NDH-4.
The issue involved prolonged delay in filing Form MGT-14 for approval of accounts. The key takeaway is that misunderstanding compliance requirements does not absolve liability under Section 450.
The order examines prolonged delay in filing mandatory board resolutions approving accounts. It underscores that late compliance, even if rectified later, can attract maximum penalties under the residuary provision.
Failure to disclose occupation of allottees in Form PAS-3 was held to violate Rule 12(2). Rejection of a statutory form was ruled insufficient to escape penalty under section 450.
The regulator held that failure to furnish full allottee particulars violates Rule 14(6). Rejection of NDH-4 led to adjudication and penalties under section 450.
The regulator held that non-spending of CSR amounts and failure to transfer unspent funds within timelines violates section 135. Subsequent voluntary payment does not absolve past defaults.
The regulator held that failure to disclose mandatory particulars of allottees violates Rule 12(2) of the Prospectus and Allotment Rules. Even where rectification is promised, the default attracts penalty under section 450.
The issue concerned dismissal of a GST appeal solely on the ground of delay beyond the condonable period. The Court condoned the marginal delay and restored the appeal.
The issue concerned whether deductions under section 80GGC could be denied solely on investigation inputs alleging accommodation entries. It was held that such information is only a trigger for enquiry, not conclusive proof. The key takeaway is that disallowance requires assessee-specific evidence and compliance with natural justice.
