The case involved non-maintenance of a functional registered office, evidenced by undelivered official communication. The authority imposed penalties, highlighting strict compliance with Section 12 requirements.
The case addressed prolonged possession of two DINs due to an inadvertent mistake. The authority imposed a ₹48,958 penalty, holding that duration of default justifies financial consequences despite bona fide intent.
This case examines whether an unintentional duplicate DIN attracts penalties under company law. The authority held that liability is strict, imposing a ₹50,000 penalty despite acknowledging bona fide conduct.
The ruling clarified that unverified electronic records and third-party statements cannot justify additions without proper verification. The absence of direct linkage and corroboration led to deletion of additions.
ITAT Hyderabad quashes reassessment as Section 148 notice, though dated 31.03.2021, was actually issued on 01.04.2021; failure to follow mandatory Section 148A procedure and obtain proper approval rendered proceedings invalid.
ITAT Pune sets aside ₹11.57 lakh disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for alleged PF/ESI delay, citing conflicting Supreme Court views in Woodland vs Checkmate; matter remanded to CIT(A) for fresh factual and legal adjudication.
A criminal revisional application filed by a firm and its directors for non-payment of tax invoice dues was dismissed as a prima facie case had been made out against assessee, observing that their conduct of denying the transaction after receiving goods indicated a dishonest intention from the inception.
Composite contracts involving supply of materials could not be taxed under construction or other service categories and only the service portion was liable to tax.
ITAT Hyderabad deletes Section 69A additions in alleged penny stock case, holding that documented share transactions cannot be treated as bogus based on suspicion or general investigation reports without specific evidence against the assessee.
Madras High Court held that it is not justifiable to impose disproportionate liability under section 74 of the respective GST enactments merely because Input Tax Credit was wrongly availed/ utilized. Accordingly, writ petition partly allowed.
