Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The Board disposed of proceedings against the Noticee regarding liability for company's unauthorized issuance of Redeemable Preference Shares to public without compliance with Companies Act, 1956 and SEBI Act, 1992. The Board held that liability under Section 73(2) requires establishing the person as an "officer who is in default" per Section 5 of Companies Act, 1956, which includes managing directors, whole-time directors, managers, secretaries, or persons charged with statutory compliance responsibilities. Since the Final Order failed to identify any specific officer in default and record showed another individual as Managing Director during relevant period 2011-12, with no evidence of Noticee's involvement in RPS issuance or designation as responsible officer, the Board concluded Noticee could not be held liable for alleged contraventions and disposed of proceedings.
The Board disposed of proceedings against the Noticee regarding liability for company's unauthorized issuance of Redeemable Preference Shares to public without compliance with Companies Act, 1956 and SEBI Act, 1992. The Board held that liability under Section 73(2) requires establishing the person as an "officer who is in default" per Section 5 of Companies Act, 1956, which includes managing directors, whole-time directors, managers, secretaries, or persons charged with statutory compliance responsibilities. Since the Final Order failed to identify any specific officer in default and record showed another individual as Managing Director during relevant period 2011-12, with no evidence of Noticee's involvement in RPS issuance or designation as responsible officer, the Board concluded Noticee could not be held liable for alleged contraventions and disposed of proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
