RBI’s 2026 amendments impose a mandatory three-year cooling-off period after directors complete ten years on co-operative bank boards. The move aims to stop directors from bypassing tenure limits through temporary resignations and reappointments.
The article highlights practical dilemmas faced during stock audits by borrowers, auditors, and bankers. It explains how professional judgment, ethical concerns, and commercial realities often create situations with no perfect solution.
The next phase of GST administration focuses on system validations, invoice matching and data analytics instead of traditional manual assessments. Companies with weak reconciliation and compliance processes may face increased notices and litigation exposure.
The Delhi ITAT held that lack of knowledge of the assessment order constituted sufficient cause for delayed filing before the CIT(A). The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
Centralized GST audits covering several years and registrations have raised concerns about misuse of extended limitation under Section 74. Courts have clarified that fraud allegations require substantive evidence and cannot be invoked merely due to limitation issues under Section 73.
Section 169 of the Companies Act gives shareholders the power to remove directors, but courts insist that procedural fairness and natural justice cannot be ignored. Judicial rulings emphasize that removal powers must not become tools of oppression or arbitrary corporate control.
The article explains how Section 186 of the Companies Act regulates loans, guarantees, securities, and investments through approval limits, disclosures, and compliance safeguards.
ITAT Mumbai held that where reassessment is based on documents seized during a search on another person, proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C and not Section 147.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee’s claim that the opening capital figure in the earlier ITR was wrongly reported due to omissions of FDRs and bank balances. Since the assets already existed in the preceding year, the addition under Section 68 was held unsustainable.
The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the Allahabad High Court ruling holding that confiscation proceedings under Section 130 cannot be initiated merely because excess stock was found during survey.
