ROC Uttar Pradesh penalized a company and its directors for failing to file the annual return for FY 2019-20 under Section 92(4). The ruling highlights strict consequences for non-filing of statutory annual returns under the Companies Act, 2013.
ROC Uttar Pradesh dropped penalty proceedings after confirming that Form MGT-14 had already been filed for approval of accounts. The ruling highlights that penalties under Section 117(2) cannot survive once compliance is verified.
ROC Uttar Pradesh imposed penalties on a company and its directors for non-filing of financial statements for FY 2019-20. The order highlights that incorrect attachments in Form AOC-4 cannot cure statutory non-compliance under Section 137 of the Companies Act.
The article explains the structure, filing requirements, and tax implications of IRS Form 1041 for trusts and estates. It highlights that the return involves detailed disclosures, schedules, deductions, and compliance obligations requiring expert handling.
FSSAI has provided a transition period until 1 July 2027 for compliance with new vegan logo specifications. The amendment focuses on standardized packaging and labeling practices.
Automation is reducing repetitive accounting work such as GST filings, reconciliations, and data entry, but professional judgment and advisory roles still require Chartered Accountants. The article explains how technology is reshaping the profession rather than eliminating it.
Madras High Court held that objections regarding fraud, suppression, and penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal remedies were available.
The High Court held that refund rejection orders must contain specific findings and proper reasoning. Since the appellate authority failed to provide a speaking order, the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
ITAT Mumbai ruled that payments made for global brand, communications, and technology support services within the Deloitte network did not amount to royalty under Article 13(3) of the India-UK DTAA. The Tribunal held that no transfer of copyright or intellectual property rights had taken place.
The Karnataka High Court set aside an ex-parte GST assessment order after finding that the taxpayer was given only one day to respond to the show cause notice. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with an opportunity to file a reply.
