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.
The ITAT Bangalore held that where incriminating documents relating to an assessee are found during a search conducted on another person, the assessment must be framed under Section 153C and not under Section 143(3).
The ITAT Bangalore held that cash received as part of sale consideration for immovable property does not automatically attract penalty under Section 271D if reasonable cause is established under Section 273B.
The ITAT Bangalore held that penalty under Section 271FAA cannot be imposed mechanically where delay in filing the correction statement of financial transactions (Form 61A) is caused by genuine technical and administrative difficulties.
The ITAT Bangalore held that once an Order Giving Effect (OGE) is passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 254, the Assessing Officer cannot issue a second order for the same assessment year. The Tribunal declared the second OGE non-est and without jurisdiction, dismissing the Revenue’s appeals.
