The ITAT observed that interest awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act differs from ordinary interest under Section 34 and forms part of enhanced compensation. Therefore, taxation provisions relating to interest income were held inapplicable.
Mumbai ITAT upheld ₹10.76 crore addition after rejecting selective identification of physical shares for capital gains computation. The Tribunal termed the arrangement a “colourable device” to suppress taxable gains.
The Tribunal held that the charitable trust mistakenly filed Form 10AB under an incorrect clause of Section 12A due to a bona fide error. ITAT directed the CIT(E) to permit correction of the application and reconsider registration on merits.
ROC Mumbai imposed penalty for possessing duplicate Director Identification Numbers in violation of Section 155. The ruling highlights that even inadvertent duplicate DIN allotment can attract continuing penalties.
The Tribunal observed that official salary documents issued by the employer and Income Tax Department showed salary income of only ₹4.67 lakh. The incorrect figure in the return was therefore held to be a typographical mistake requiring rectification.
ROC Delhi held that failure to regularize an Additional Director at the next AGM violated Section 161(1) of the Companies Act. Since the default continued for 2,721 days, maximum penalties were imposed on the company and directors.
The Tribunal held that effective opportunity was not provided before rejecting the applications for registration and approval. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for reconsideration in accordance with law.
The ROC found that the company failed to timely record cessation of an Additional Director whose office had automatically vacated by law. Delayed filing of DIR-12 resulted in severe penalties under Section 172.
CESTAT Bangalore held that limitation for filing a service tax appeal depends on the actual date of communication of the order, not merely the date of issuance. The Tribunal remanded the matter after finding no proof of delivery of the adjudication orders.
ROC Mumbai held that even clerical mistakes in DIR-12 can attract penalty under Section 450 when incorrect information is certified in MCA filings. The ruling highlights the responsibility of authorized signatories to ensure accuracy of e-forms.
