The case involved non-compliance with mandatory appointment of a whole-time company secretary. The authority held that delayed rectification does not remove liability for past violations.
The authority penalized prolonged non-compliance with mandatory appointment requirements under Section 203. Despite later rectification, penalties were imposed, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory timelines.
The Tribunal held that advances received under an uncompleted sale agreement are not taxable. Income arises only when transfer or forfeiture occurs.
ITAT Bangalore rules skill development qualifies as education, allowing Sec 11 exemption to charitable trust. Rejects commercial activity view, follows Karnataka HC, and grants full tax relief.
Highlights that failure to act on workplace harassment complaints may be treated as abetment, attracting criminal consequences. The key takeaway is that procedural inaction is no longer defensible.
Establishes that higher tax burdens on promoters under the new regime require companies to reassess payout strategies. The takeaway is that buybacks are no longer the default option.
Emphasizes that organizations must shift from policy-based compliance to building a culture of safety rooted in accountability and empathy. The key takeaway is that true workplace safety is achieved through proactive governance and leadership commitment.
Clarifies that revision under sections 264 and 378 is a taxpayer-friendly remedy where authorities cannot pass orders prejudicial to the assessee. It ensures a safe correction mechanism for overassessment or missed claims without risk of enhancement.
Clarifies that revision under both old and new tax laws requires proof of error and revenue prejudice. Mere disagreement with the Assessing Officer’s view is insufficient.
Smt. Subbalakshmi Kurada Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore) In , the ITAT Bangalore deleted penalty under Section 271(1)(c), holding that mere disallowance or change in head of income does not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee had: Shown rental income partly as rent and partly as hire charges (under business income) Claimed Section […]
