ITAT Chandigarh held that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the assessee failed to deposit unutilised funds in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date under Section 139(1). The Tribunal ruled that actual investment in a residential house within the prescribed period amounted to substantive compliance deserving liberal interpretation.
ITAT Mumbai held that an addition under Section 69A cannot be sustained when the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statement forms the basis of the assessment. The Tribunal ruled that reliance on such untested statements violates principles of natural justice and renders the addition legally unsustainable.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for failing to disclose PAN and e-mail IDs of allottees in Form PAS-3. The order highlights strict compliance requirements under Rule 14(6) of the Companies Act framework.
ROC Chennai penalised a Nidhi company and its directors for incomplete allottee disclosures in Form PAS-3. The order clarifies that absence of PAN or e-mail details cannot excuse statutory non-compliance.
ROC Chennai penalised a Nidhi company and its directors for filing incomplete allottee details in Form PAS-3. The ruling clarifies that occupation details of allottees are mandatory under Rule 12(2) of the Companies Rules, 2014.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for filing Form MGT-7 more than 500 days late under Section 92 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling confirms that annual return filing delays attract substantial penalties despite operational or legal difficulties.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for delayed filing of Form MGT-14 relating to approval of financial statements and Board’s Report. The ruling reiterates that board resolutions under Section 179(3) must be filed within the prescribed statutory timeline.
ROC Chennai penalised a company and its director for delayed filing of financial statements under Section 137 of the Companies Act, 2013. The ruling confirms that prolonged litigation and staff shortage cannot excuse statutory MCA filing delays.
ROC Mumbai levied a penalty under Section 450 after a company incorrectly stated that CSR provisions were not applicable in Form AOC-4 XBRL. The order highlights that directors signing MCA forms are personally responsible for accuracy of disclosures and attachments.
The Pune ITAT held that reassessment proceedings become void when approval under Section 151 is taken from the wrong authority. Since sanction was obtained from the PCIT instead of the PCCIT, the notice under Section 148 was quashed.
