The authority held that although the annual return was filed 266 days late, no penalty could be imposed as the default was rectified before adjudication notice. The ruling underscores relief under Section 454(3) for cured defaults.
The adjudicating authority held that omission of DIN details in statutory filings violates disclosure norms. A monetary penalty was imposed on the defaulting director under the Companies Act.
The regulator approved a framework permitting scheduled banks to sponsor pension funds, aiming to boost competition and strengthen the pension ecosystem.
The issue was whether a loan can be treated as unexplained despite full repayment within the year. The Tribunal held that once receipt and repayment are proved through banking channels, section 68 cannot apply.
The issue was whether declared business income can be overlooked while estimating profits after rejecting books. The Tribunal held that ignoring returned income leads to double taxation and directed its set-off.
The issue was whether the company could be asked to explain the source of shareholders funds for a pre-2013 year. The Tribunal held that the proviso to section 68 is prospective, making the addition unsustainable.
The issue was whether reassessment can continue when all notices are issued in the name of a deceased assessee. The Tribunal held such proceedings void ab initio, as jurisdiction ceases upon death.
The issue was whether the appellate authority could delete a large unexplained investment without following Rule 46A. The Tribunal held that bypassing mandatory procedure invalidates the relief, and the matter must be re-examined.
The notification grants Section 10(23FE) exemption to specified pension funds for eligible India investments, subject to detailed compliance and reporting conditions.
The issue was whether cash found at a third party’s premises could be added in the assessee’s 153A assessment. The Tribunal held such additions invalid, ruling that proceedings must be initiated under section 153C.
