Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
Merchant banker regulation consolidates registration, governance, capital, reporting, outsourcing and investor-protection requirements under an update...
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 4809 
Join Channel 
