The ROC held that incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 amounted to violation of Rule 8(3) of the Companies Rules. Even inadvertent filing mistakes in digitally signed forms can lead to penalties under Section 450.
ITAT Mumbai held that once the lender confirmed the transaction during assessment and remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer could not doubt the genuineness of the loan. The ruling reinforces that proper documentary evidence carries significant evidentiary value.
ROC Mumbai penalized a director for possessing two Director Identification Numbers in contravention of Section 155 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority held that even inadvertent allotment of duplicate DIN attracts penalty under Section 159.
The Bangalore ITAT held that deduction under Section 80IA can be granted only if the income is genuinely derived from the eligible industrial undertaking. Mere classification of income under other sources does not automatically entitle an assessee to deduction.
The Bangalore ITAT held that mere differences between declared construction cost and DVO estimates cannot sustain additions under Section 69B without independent evidence of unaccounted investment. The Tribunal deleted additions relating to hostel construction expenditure.
The Bangalore ITAT held that charitable trusts publishing and selling educational books do not lose Section 11 exemption merely because they earn surplus. Educational publishing activities were held distinct from commercial business activities.
The Bangalore ITAT held that uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and retracted statements are insufficient to sustain large on-money additions in search assessments. Additions based purely on estimates without incriminating evidence were deleted.
The Court held that shareholder resolutions seeking removal of directors under Section 284 are independent of Section 188 requirements relating to circulation of members’ resolutions.
The article discusses concerns over inconsistent expert reports, ad hoc committees, and relaxed evidentiary standards in NGT proceedings. It warns that weak scientific scrutiny may compromise the credibility of environmental adjudication.
The Delhi High Court upheld restraint on a company’s move to remove a director because the special notice only made vague allegations without disclosing particulars. The Court held that statutory rights under Section 169 require meaningful grounds and opportunity of representation.
