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.
The tribunal considered whether CPC could rely solely on the original tax audit report to make an adjustment. It held that corrections through revised reports and financial records must be examined before sustaining an addition.
The case involved CPC adjustment denying deduction for employees’ PF contribution deposited after statutory due dates. The tribunal ruled that before the Supreme Court’s later decision, the issue was debatable and could not be adjusted under Section 143(1).
The Court set aside the DGFT order imposing penalty and customs duty demand for alleged EPCG export obligation default. The matter was remanded after directing the authority to provide the petitioner a personal hearing.
