Penalty for estimation of income and disallowances for tax non-deduction clarified: estimation-based penalties not sustainable; additions without conc...
Managerial remuneration disallowance under s.40A(2)(b) challenged over alleged tax-avoidance; appellate decision restored deletion of addition for dir...
Classification of imported goods as electronic cigarette versus tobacco product reversed for lack of proof; order set aside for jurisdictional overrea...
Clause 4.1 of the 2024 RBI Master Directions and Footnote 14 were held to govern eligibility and independence of an external forensic auditor, and could not be treated as merely prospective because they reflect the requirement that only auditors qualified under relevant statutes conduct such audits. Since the appointed auditor had an admitted continuing consultancy relationship with lender banks, a conflict of interest arose, undermining the bedrock requirement of forensic independence; consequently, the appointment and actions founded on that audit were found prima facie dubitable. Further, the audit report was signed by a non-CA and the firm's CA partners were not registered with ICAI, rendering the appointment untenable, and the gross delay in submission breached RBI timelines, justifying interim protection to prevent grave irreparable harm; the suit was allowed. - HC
Clause 4.1 of the 2024 RBI Master Directions and Footnote 14 were held to govern eligibility and independence of an external forensic auditor, and could not be treated as merely prospective because they reflect the requirement that only auditors qualified under relevant statutes conduct such audits. Since the appointed auditor had an admitted continuing consultancy relationship with lender banks, a conflict of interest arose, undermining the bedrock requirement of forensic independence; consequently, the appointment and actions founded on that audit were found prima facie dubitable. Further, the audit report was signed by a non-CA and the firm's CA partners were not registered with ICAI, rendering the appointment untenable, and the gross delay in submission breached RBI timelines, justifying interim protection to prevent grave irreparable harm; the suit was allowed. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.