The case deals with failure to maintain statutory disclosure records under Section 184. The authority imposed penalties on all directors, emphasizing strict compliance and record-keeping obligations.
The ROC held that delayed filing of Form MGT-14 constitutes a clear violation of Section 117. Even if eventually filed, non-compliance within the prescribed timeline attracts monetary penalties on both company and officers.
The case addresses delayed filing of return of allotment beyond the mandated 15 days under Section 42(8). The authority imposed penalties, reinforcing strict compliance requirements for private placements.
The Tribunal held that member-based receipts may be exempt under the principle of mutuality. The matter was remanded to verify whether contributors and beneficiaries are identical.
The Tribunal found no evidence linking the appellant to receipt of proceeds of crime under PMLA. It set aside the attachment, holding that mere suspicion without proof cannot justify action.
The Tribunal confirmed liability of directors under Section 42 based on their role in managing the company. It found no error in holding them responsible. Key takeaway: managerial control establishes accountability.
Investments made by a foreign company could not be attributed to a non-resident individual shareholder without lifting the corporate veil. AO could not tax these investments in the assessee’s hands without proving the funds were routed personally by him.
The Tribunal upheld FERA violations involving unauthorized foreign exchange transfers through hawala channels. However, considering delay and circumstances, it reduced the penalty significantly.
The authority penalized the company for filing incorrect AGM details in Form AOC-4 XBRL. It held that even clerical errors violate statutory requirements. The ruling stresses accuracy in corporate filings.
The authority penalized the company for not identifying SBOs despite clear evidence of control and influence. It held that such identification is mandatory under Section 90. The ruling reinforces transparency in ownership structures.
