The Tribunal held that mere reliance on an Investigation Wing report without linking the assessee to price manipulation cannot justify treating LTCG as bogus. Documentary evidence and banking transactions supported genuineness.
Delhi High Court held that absolute confiscation as ordered is justifiable in view of import of Areca Nuts below Minimum Import Price condition. Accordingly, extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution not warranted and hence writ petition stands dismissed.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) does not apply in reassessment where no advance tax liability existed, setting aside dismissal of appeal and restoring it for decision on merits.
Orissa High Court held that refund claimed in respect of tax paid erroneously or under mistaken notion cannot be denied solely on the ground of limitation stipulated in section 54 of the GST Act. Accordingly, refund of taxes deposited twice is allowed and order rejection refund is quashed.
SEBI’s amended cyber resilience framework strengthens governance by formalizing roles of CTO and CISO and restructuring reporting lines within MIIs. However, the absence of clear individual liability creates an accountability gap despite enhanced oversight mechanisms.
A mismatch in paid-up capital disclosure in the annual return led to penalty proceedings under Section 454. The decision emphasizes that compliance failures in MCA filings, even if unintentional, invite statutory penalties.
A company was penalized for incorrectly selecting its OPC/Small Company status in Form AOC-4. The adjudicating authority clarified that MCA records are statutory public documents and inaccuracies attract liability despite claims of clerical error. Rectification does not nullify the offence.
ROC Pune imposed a penalty after a typographical error led to incorrect AGM details in Form MGT-7A. Although the AGM was duly held, incorrect filing attracted liability under Section 450. The director was fined ₹5,000 considering the company’s small status.
The adjudicating officer found that holding multiple DINs contravened Section 155 of the Companies Act. Despite the director’s claim of inadvertence and voluntary surrender, a reduced penalty of 50% of the maximum was levied.
The Court held that affiliation and inspection services do not qualify as “education” under Section 66D(l)(ii) and are taxable. The writ was dismissed for delay and lack of exemption eligibility.
