ROC held that failure to disclose PAN and email IDs of allottees in the PAS-3 attachment violates Rule 14(6), attracting penalty under Section 450 of the Companies Act.
The Registrar of Companies imposed penalties after a company filed its annual return 245 days late in violation of Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. Despite claims of an inadvertent procedural lapse, the adjudicating authority held the company and its directors liable and levied monetary penalties.
The adjudicating authority held that failure to disclose the occupation of allottees in Form PAS-3 violates Rule 12(2). A penalty was imposed under Section 450 for non-compliance with disclosure requirements.
ROC held that failure to file Form MGT-6 within 30 days after receiving beneficial ownership declarations violates Section 89(6), attracting maximum penalties on the company and its director.
Courts have questioned the practice of denying ITC by calling suppliers “non-existent” while simultaneously taxing outward supplies. The emerging judicial view protects bona fide buyers and rejects inconsistent fact-finding that causes cascading taxation.
The High Court held that only 30 days of limitation survived after applying TOLA and Supreme Court rulings. Notices issued after expiry of the surviving period were declared time-barred.
Delhi High Court held that seismic survey services in connection with exploration of oil cannot be held to be in nature of Fees for Technical Services [FTS]/Royalty and hence not covered under section 44DA of the Income Tax Act. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed.
The Tribunal held that an appeal filed before a Bench lacking territorial jurisdiction is not maintainable and cannot be transferred. Liberty was granted to approach the correct Bench with a delay condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that EIS paid to originators is not subject to TDS because the originator had not subscribed to PTCs and was not an investor. Since statutory conditions under Section 194LBC were not met, demand under Sections 201 and 201(1A) was deleted.
The Court directed the PCCIT to appoint a senior officer to re-examine a refund claim where both parties lacked decades-old records. A reasoned decision must be taken to ensure any legitimate refund is not denied.
