Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Page of 4819
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1501 to 1520 of 96363 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Freezing the Demat Accounts of the petitioners - The Calcutta High Court adjudicated on the legality of freezing Demat Accounts of petitioners, directors of a listed company, by the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). The petitioners argued that the freezing of their accounts violated SEBI Regulations due to lack of individual notices. The CSE justified its actions citing persistent non-compliance by the company. The court found procedural lapses by the CSE in issuing individual notices, as required under SEBI Circular dated January 22, 2020, but recognized the company's non-compliance. The court set aside the freezing notice, directing the CSE to issue fresh compliance notices to the petitioners, and allowed for future freezing actions if non-compliance persists.
Freezing the Demat Accounts of the petitioners - The Calcutta High Court adjudicated on the legality of freezing Demat Accounts of petitioners, directors of a listed company, by the Calcutta Stock Exchange (CSE). The petitioners argued that the freezing of their accounts violated SEBI Regulations due to lack of individual notices. The CSE justified its actions citing persistent non-compliance by the company. The court found procedural lapses by the CSE in issuing individual notices, as required under SEBI Circular dated January 22, 2020, but recognized the company's non-compliance. The court set aside the freezing notice, directing the CSE to issue fresh compliance notices to the petitioners, and allowed for future freezing actions if non-compliance persists.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
