Failure to file AOC-4 for multiple years led to penalties under Section 137(3). The order reiterates that statutory timelines are mandatory and enforceable through adjudication.
Authorities held that failure to explain adverse audit remarks in the Directors’ Report violates statutory disclosure duties and attracts mandatory penalties.
The authority held that absence of a statutory register of members at the registered office violates Section 88. Administrative or record-keeping difficulties were not accepted as a defence, resulting in penalties on the company and directors.
The ROC imposed penalties after finding that mandatory Board Meetings were not held since incorporation. The key takeaway is that holding and documenting Board Meetings is a strict statutory obligation.
The tribunal held that a purchase cannot be treated as bogus solely based on third-party allegations. Without independent verification by the Assessing Officer, the disallowance was held unsustainable.
This explains how ITC is wrongly denied when suppliers default or face retrospective cancellation. The key takeaway is that bona fide buyers cannot be penalized without proof of collusion.
The case examined whether multiple agricultural properties were joint family assets or self-acquisitions. The Supreme Court upheld findings that ancestral income existed, shifting the burden to prove self-acquisition, which failed.
This explains how Budget 2026 retrospectively clarifies that only the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer can issue reassessment notices. The key takeaway is that notice-stage litigation is largely settled.
The tribunal held that interest earned from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Such banks are treated as co-operative societies, making the interest fully deductible.
The tribunal held that amounts already disclosed and taxed as accommodated receipts cannot be taxed again under another head. Separate additions were deleted as they resulted in impermissible double taxation.
