PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
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 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
