The case addressed whether tax authorities can issue notices for multiple years based on one satisfaction note. The tribunal ruled that each assessment year requires an independent satisfaction linking seized material.
The court analysed whether the reason account blocked falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the provision applies only when dishonour is linked to insufficient funds or lack of arrangement.
ROC Mumbai penalised the authorized signatory after financial statements were mistakenly filed in Form AOC-4 instead of AOC-4 XBRL. The order reiterates that correct statutory forms must be used for compliance filings.
ROC Mumbai imposed a penalty after a company incorrectly declared that CSR provisions were not applicable while filing AOC-4 XBRL. The order holds the authorized signatory responsible for accuracy of e-forms.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for incorrect financial information reported in the AOC-4 XBRL filing. The order emphasizes that authorized signatories are responsible for the accuracy of e-forms filed with MCA.
Supreme Court held that section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 doesn’t require mandatory obtaining or circulating of formal valuation report from an approved/registered valuer for reduction of share capital.
The Tribunal held that when an adjustment made in the CPC intimation is subsequently deleted in appeal, the scrutiny assessment relying on that adjustment cannot continue. The income was therefore restored to the amount originally declared by the assessee.
Despite disputes over agricultural income additions, the Tribunal focused on the legality of the proceedings. It held that issuing a notice to a deceased taxpayer is a substantive illegality and cannot be treated as a curable procedural defect. The assessment was quashed.
The tribunal considered whether inconsistent explanations alone justify treating cash deposits as unexplained income. It held that suspicion cannot replace evidence and additions require proper investigation.
The tribunal examined whether the reasons given for late filing of the appeal were sufficient. It ruled that routine administrative workload and grievance handling cannot explain a substantial delay.
