A company was penalised for filing an incomplete and incorrect INC-22 for change of registered office. Startup status helped secure a reduced penalty under Section 446B.
The issue was whether reassessment after three years was barred by limitation. The Tribunal held it valid since the escaped income exceeded ₹50 lakh, attracting the extended reopening window.
The tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A cannot be levied where the assessee voluntarily withdrew the education cess claim after a retrospective amendment. A bona fide claim made on prevailing judicial views does not amount to under-reporting or misreporting.
Errors and omissions in the annual return were held to violate Section 92. Even timely filing does not cure defective disclosures, though penalties were reduced for a startup.
The adjudicating authority held that utilisation of application money before filing PAS-3 violates Section 42. Even procedural deviations in private placement can trigger substantial penalties.
Failure to attach the EGM notice and explanatory statement in statutory filings was held to violate Rule 13(d). The key takeaway is that procedural lapses attract penalties even where shareholder approval exists.
The case examined penalty levied on estimated additions and statutory disallowance. The Tribunal held that neither category amounts to concealment or inaccurate particulars.
The decision underscores that ignoring audited disclosures, ledgers, and salary records violates principles of natural justice. Once actual payment is proved, gratuity deduction must be allowed.
The regulator held that issuing securities through private placement without a registered valuer’s report violates Section 62(1)(c). A reduced penalty was imposed considering start-up status.
A company was penalised for long-term non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a Company Secretary. The order reiterates strict enforcement of Section 203 of the Companies Act.
