Political contribution deductions require genuine transactions; banking records and party registration alone cannot defeat evidence of accommodation e...
Post-death GST liability permits fresh proceedings against legal representatives, while discontinued-business recovery remains limited to the inherite...
Non-confirmation of FEMA seizure prevents adjudicators from overriding pending appellate findings on recorded reasons and suspected foreign asset hold...
The HC exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to further reduce the compounding fine imposed on each Petitioner under sections 159, 162, and 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioners, not being directors at the time of the alleged offences, were initially fined Rs. 1.5 lakhs each for failure to file financial statements and annual returns. Applying the doctrine of proportionality and balancing and necessity tests, the Court found the original fine excessive given the nature of the offence and prior penalties on the company. Consequently, the Court reduced the compounding fine to Rs. 1 lakh each, acknowledging the protracted litigation and concluding the matter.
The HC exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to further reduce the compounding fine imposed on each Petitioner under sections 159, 162, and 220(3) of the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioners, not being directors at the time of the alleged offences, were initially fined Rs. 1.5 lakhs each for failure to file financial statements and annual returns. Applying the doctrine of proportionality and balancing and necessity tests, the Court found the original fine excessive given the nature of the offence and prior penalties on the company. Consequently, the Court reduced the compounding fine to Rs. 1 lakh each, acknowledging the protracted litigation and concluding the matter.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
