The Tribunal ruled that corpus donations cannot be taxed merely because Section 12AA registration was granted subsequently. Once registration existed before processing of return, exemption under Section 11 could not be denied.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that depreciation on building assets was not charged in the financial statements in violation of Accounting Standard-6. The authority held that failure to report the non-compliance affected the true and fair view of accounts.
ROC Kolkata imposed penalty on an auditor after finding that material investment disclosures required under Schedule III of the Companies Act were omitted from financial statements. The authority held that the auditor failed to report the company’s statutory non-compliance under Section 143.
ROC Kolkata penalised a private company and its directors for non-filing of annual returns under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. The adjudicating authority held that continued default in statutory filings attracted monetary penalties under Section 92(5).
ROC Kolkata penalized a company and its directors for delayed transfer of unspent CSR funds to the Swachh Bharat Kosh. The order highlights strict enforcement of Section 135(7) compliance timelines under the Companies Act.
Applying Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, Rajasthan HC ruled that no rape offence could be made out against a legally wedded husband where wife was an adult. Court therefore quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal held that agricultural land situated beyond notified municipal limits is not a capital asset under the Income Tax Act. It deleted the entire capital gains addition arising from sale of such land.
The Allahabad High Court observed that throwing non-vegetarian food waste into the River Ganga could hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. However, the Court granted bail after finding that the accused had expressed regret and the investigation would continue unaffected.
The Tribunal held that amount received on surrender of a pension policy could not be taxed as Income from Other Sources without proper examination of Section 80CCC(2). The entire addition of ₹10.40 lakh was deleted.
ITAT Ahmedabad held that no unexplained investment addition could survive where the booked property deal was cancelled and funds were refunded. The ruling emphasized verification of actual payment flow and subsequent cancellation events.
