The issue involved whether omission of PAN, email ID, and address in Form PAS-3 violates statutory rules. The authority held that Rule 14(6) mandates complete disclosure of allottee details. The ruling emphasizes strict compliance with corporate filing requirements.
The case examined whether occupation details can be omitted when allottees lack occupation. The authority rejected this interpretation and imposed penalties for non-compliance. The decision clarifies that statutory forms must be filled completely and accurately.
The issue involved non-filing of mandatory Form MGT-14 for board resolutions approving financial statements. The authority held that failure to comply with Sections 117 and 179 constitutes a continuing default attracting penalties.
RBI sets new framework for agency commission, reporting, and monitoring of agency banks. Key takeaway: stricter compliance and standardized processes now mandatory.
RBI introduced new directions mandating prompt pension credit and adherence to government orders. The framework ensures efficiency, accountability, and improved service delivery to pensioners.
RBI clarified that the Digital Rupee is legal tender with features similar to physical cash. It enables secure, instant, and fee-free transactions through digital wallets.
Canara Bank has invited online applications from Proprietary Concerns, Firms and LLPs for empanelment as concurrent auditors for 704 branches by May 9, 2026.
CESTAT Delhi held that statements recorded during investigation cannot be relied upon as evidence unless the mandatory procedure under Section 9D—examination before adjudicating authority and admissibility determination—is followed.
Avanti Feeds Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of State Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court) The writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerned the jurisdiction to assess and recover Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) on imported goods and the authority of State GST officers to initiate proceedings in relation to such imports. The petitioner, […]
ITAT Mumbai held that payments made to third-party vendors on a cost-to-cost basis, without any value addition by the assessee, should be treated as pass-through costs and excluded from PLI computation.
