ROC Chandigarh penalised a company and its directors after finding that financial statements and Board Reports were not approved through Board resolutions as required under Section 179(3). The order held that continued non-compliance attracted penalties under Section 450 of the Companies Act.
ROC Chandigarh penalised a company and its directors for not filing financial statements from FY 2017-18 to 2022-23 within the statutory timeline. The order held that continuous default under Section 137 attracted penalties under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Chandigarh penalized a company and its directors under Section 92(5) of the Companies Act for non-filing of annual returns from FY 2017-18 to 2022-23. The directors were each fined the maximum penalty permitted under the law.
Section 56 of Companies Act, 2013 requires execution of a proper instrument of transfer for transfer of interest of a member in a company not having share capital. Instrument must be executed by or on behalf of both transferor and transferee and delivered to company
A group health insurance coverage provides medical expenses for a group of people, especially employees of an organisation or a co-operative society. This type of policy offers benefits like daycare treatments, covers hospitalisation costs, and AYUSH treatment.
Sections 339 and 340 explain corpus and deemed corpus donations, investment conditions, and rules for religious place renovation funds.
Calcutta High Court held that failure to investigate allocation of common head office expenses to eligible units rendered assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue interests.
The DGFT has changed the import status of specified silver bars from “Free” to “Restricted” under ITC HS Codes 71069221 and 71069229. Importers must now comply with Policy Condition No. 7 of Chapter 71 under the revised import framework.
Delhi HC held that proviso to Section 45 of PMLA grants discretionary relief to women accused and stringent twin bail conditions would not ordinarily apply unless exceptional circumstances exist.
The ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid because the Assessing Officer reopened the case for fictitious loan entries but made additions for alleged bogus LTCG from penny stock transactions. The Tribunal ruled that changing the basis of reopening is not permissible in law.
