ITAT Bangalore held that the Income Tax Act does not bar a trust from filing a fresh Section 80G application merely because an earlier rejection was not challenged. The Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh consideration after holding the “void-ab-initio” finding unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) could not survive once the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) after accepting the assessee’s explanations and returned income.
The Karnataka High Court remitted GST proceedings after noting allegations that duplicate adjudication orders were passed for the same tax period on ITC mismatch issues. The Court directed fresh adjudication after giving the taxpayer an opportunity to respond.
Tribunal ruled that future projections under DCF method cannot be tested solely against later actual financial performance. It observed that valuation is based on assumptions and future business expectations prevailing on valuation date.
Orissa High Court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging GST classification of iron ore fines exports because the petitioner had not exhausted the appellate remedy under Section 112 of the GST Act. The Court held that disputed classification issues should be decided by statutory authorities.
CESTAT Chennai held that service tax cannot be levied twice on the same commercial coaching and training services by taxing both the principal entity and its business partner. The Tribunal found that service tax had already been discharged by the principal service provider.
ROC Pune held that procedural lapses in a private placement involving one investor formed part of a single integrated transaction and did not justify multiple penalties. No penalty was imposed under Section 42(10) of the Companies Act.
ROC Pune penalized a start-up company and its officers for delayed filing of e-Form MGT-14 relating to a Special Resolution under Section 117(1). Reduced penalties were granted after extending the benefit of Section 446B applicable to small companies and start-ups.
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for delayed filing of e-Form PAS-3 relating to private placement allotment under Section 42(8). The authority held that delay in filing return of allotment attracts separate penalty under Section 42(9).
ROC Pune penalized a company and its directors for utilizing private placement funds before filing return of allotment under Section 42(8). The authority held that such utilization violated the proviso to Section 42(4) of the Companies Act.
