Charitable registration renewal cannot become an assessment of receipts, profitability or annual exemption compliance, requiring renewal and donation ...
AMP expenditure for own business is not an international transaction without an associated-enterprise arrangement, eliminating transfer pricing adjust...
Customs valuation must use comparable contemporary imports, while confiscation fines and penalties require proportionate recalculation on reassessed v...
Depositor-protection proceedings prevail over corporate insolvency, while liquidators may recover chit receivables using copies of seized company reco...
Intermediary service classification fails where overseas admission facilitation is supplied independently, preserving export treatment and small-provi...
Satellite transponder bandwidth is telecommunication, not Business Support Service; foreign non-telegraph providers triggered no service tax liability...
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied...
Proportionality in company penalty quantification requires aggravating and mitigating factors; mechanical multiplication of director liability is impermissible.
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied with proportionality, so penalty quantification cannot be reduced to a mechanical daily computation; aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered under Rule 3(12), and the impugned order was arbitrary in treating the provision as fixed and mandatory. The Court also held that non-certification of the list of allottees separately with Form PAS-3 remained a technical default attracting liability, although the affirmation in the form mitigated its gravity. On officer liability, the penalty could not be mechanically multiplied by the number of directors; it was modified to joint and several liability against the company and its directors.
HC held that Section 39(5) of the Companies Act must be applied with proportionality, so penalty quantification cannot be reduced to a mechanical daily computation; aggravating and mitigating circumstances must be considered under Rule 3(12), and the impugned order was arbitrary in treating the provision as fixed and mandatory. The Court also held that non-certification of the list of allottees separately with Form PAS-3 remained a technical default attracting liability, although the affirmation in the form mitigated its gravity. On officer liability, the penalty could not be mechanically multiplied by the number of directors; it was modified to joint and several liability against the company and its directors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
