PCIT had erroneously mixed up the scope of renewal proceedings with cancellation proceedings under Section 12AB(4). Further, Settlement Commission itself had accepted the charitable nature and genuineness of the assessee’s activities and PCIT (Central) was found to lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue of renewal/cancellation of registration.
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of Form PAS-3 under Section 42(8) of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority held that delayed filing of return of allotment attracts a separate penalty under Section 42(9).
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of Form MGT-14 under Section 117 of the Companies Act, 2013. The authority granted reduced penalties after recognizing the company as a start-up eligible for Section 446B benefits.
ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement issue related to one integrated transaction and did not warrant multiple penalties. The authority accepted the company’s contention that Section 42(10) does not contemplate separate penalties for each procedural deviation.
The Bangalore ITAT held that the Assessing Officer cannot estimate additional profit merely due to a fall in net profit ratio when books of account are not rejected. The Tribunal ruled that suspicion over self-made vouchers without concrete evidence cannot justify arbitrary additions.
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for failure to file commencement of business declaration within the prescribed period under Section 10A. The delay occurred after the foreign subscriber could not remit share capital due to SWIFT KYC issues.
Reimbursement of interim payments from insured banks in priority to other liabilities was a valid exercise of legislative competence. The argument that the DICGC, being an insurer, was limited to the rights of subrogation and could not rank higher than the insured depositors was rejected.
The New Income Tax Act, 2025 replaces multiple TDS and TCS provisions with consolidated Sections 392, 393 and 394 effective from FY 2026-27. The reform simplifies compliance, introduces code-based reporting, and rationalises deduction rates and thresholds.
The Karnataka High Court held that TCS liability under Section 52 arises only when an e-commerce operator collects payment for supplies made through its platform. Since the operator merely facilitated transactions without collecting consideration, GST proceedings under Section 74 were quashed.
The Bangalore ITAT held that once a notice under Section 143(2) initiates regular scrutiny assessment, the Department cannot subsequently resort to summary processing under Section 143(1). The Tribunal quashed massive GST-related adjustments as being without jurisdiction.
