The article questions the use of Section 74 for mere reconciliation differences between Form 26AS and GSTR-1. The key takeaway is that fraud provisions require evidence of deliberate tax evasion, not routine mismatches.
This article explains the legal framework governing debenture issuance by private companies under the Companies Act, 2013. The key takeaway is that compliance with Sections 42 and 71, ROC filings, and security requirements is essential for a valid issue.
This guide explains the complete legal procedure for transferring a registered office from one State to another under the Companies Act, 2013. The key takeaway is that shareholder approval and Regional Director consent are mandatory for interstate shifting.
SEBI has proposed a uniform framework for fixing price bands and pre-open base prices for scrips listed on multiple exchanges. The move seeks to address price divergence caused by non-trading on one or more exchanges.
The High Court held that notices issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C. are an integral component of criminal investigation and cannot ordinarily be quashed. However, it issued safeguards to protect the petitioner’s right to seek legal remedies.
The Tribunal held that an incomplete document recovered from an employee’s laptop could not justify an addition under Section 69 without supporting evidence. The absence of cross-examination and independent verification weighed against the Revenue.
The debate examines why GST penalties under Section 122(1A) may survive a direct challenge under Article 20(2). The key takeaway is that tax penalties are generally treated as civil consequences rather than criminal punishments.
The ITAT held that once registration under Section 12AB was ultimately granted on the basis of the original application, the doctrine of relating back applied. As a result, exemption under Sections 11 and 12 could not be denied for the relevant assessment year.
The Kerala High Court set aside a consolidated notice issued for FY 2019-20 to 2024-25. It held that separate notices must be issued for each assessment year in line with earlier precedents.
The ITAT Chennai ruled that funds received by a Chartered Accountant for remitting clients’ taxes could not be treated as unexplained money. Documentary evidence showing corresponding tax payments led to deletion of the additions.
