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.
CESTAT Delhi held that incorrect classification or self-assessment of imported goods does not automatically constitute misdeclaration under the Customs Act. The Tribunal set aside penalties imposed on the Customs Broker.
Chennai ITAT held that seminars, workshops, conferences, and medical training programmes can qualify as “education” under Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal revived the 80G renewal application of a cardiology association and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
ITAT Bangalore held that an appeal filed without verification by the authorized Principal Officer was not maintainable. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but allowed liberty to file a properly verified appeal with condonation request, if necessary.
Gujarat High Court held that reassessment notices issued after scrutiny assessment were invalid because the Assessing Officer had already examined the Section 50C valuation issue during original proceedings. The Court ruled that reopening amounted to a mere change of opinion.
ITAT Delhi noted that confirmations from the company and broker regarding share transactions were available but not adequately considered by the Assessing Officer. The case was remanded for denovo assessment.
