The Bombay High Court set aside a GST refund rejection order after finding that the adjudicating authority failed to provide proper reasons or consider the taxpayer’s submissions. The Court held that refund claims cannot be rejected through non-speaking orders passed without application of mind.
The article clarifies that ASISSE notices derive authority from the Collection of Statistics Act and not from Section 405 of the Companies Act, 2013. It explains the legal distinction and compliance implications for companies and LLPs.
The weekly roundup covers important Supreme Court rulings, GST advisories, RBI amendments, SEBI consultation papers, and insolvency law developments. The key takeaway is the growing focus on digital compliance and regulatory oversight across sectors.
The Tribunal deleted penalty levied on society charges and depreciation disallowances after finding that the claims were fully disclosed in books and audited financial statements. It held that ad hoc disallowances alone cannot trigger concealment penalty.
Bangalore ITAT held that deduction under Section 43B cannot be denied merely because Form 3CD reflected GST payable on the audit report date. The Tribunal directed verification of subsequent payment made before the due date of filing the return.
The Tribunal ruled that bonus shares sold after being held for more than 12 months were taxable as exempt long-term capital gains and not business income. The assessees treatment of bonus shares as investments was accepted.
The ROC rejected the company’s defense that temporary reconstruction and business disputes justified the absence of staff and signboards. It held that statutory obligations under Section 12 remain mandatory at all times.
The adjudication order clarifies that incomplete filing of statutory resolutions on the MCA portal constitutes non-compliance. The company failed to rectify the defect despite notices and hearing opportunities.
ROC Mumbai-II imposed a penalty on a director for incorrect disclosure in Form AOC-4 XBRL filed for FY 2023-24. The authority held that authorised signatories are responsible for accuracy of e-form contents under Rule 8(3).
ROC Mumbai penalised a company and its directors for failing to disclose a related party loan transaction in the Board’s Report and Form AOC-4. The authority held that omission of the transaction violated Section 134(3)(h) of the Companies Act.
