Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
Demat accounts held by the petitioner, a practicing gynecologist, were frozen by NSDL at the behest of BSE/NSE under SEBI directives due to alleged non-compliance with SEBI (LODR) Regulations by Shrenuj. The court held that the petitioner's role as a promoter ended after incorporation and board constitution, hence non-submission of financial results and non-compliance could not be attributed to him. The SEBI circular allowing freezing of promoter's demat accounts in other securities to the extent of liability was held contrary to statutory requirements. Freezing securities in companies other than the defaulter company without following principles of natural justice was deemed illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 21, and 300A. Recovery from demat accounts must adhere to Depositories Act provisions. The impugned action of freezing petitioner's demat account was grossly illegal, and the petitioner was allowed to deal with all shares. SEBI/BSE/NSE were directed to jointly pay Rs. 30 lakhs to the petitioner.
Demat accounts held by the petitioner, a practicing gynecologist, were frozen by NSDL at the behest of BSE/NSE under SEBI directives due to alleged non-compliance with SEBI (LODR) Regulations by Shrenuj. The court held that the petitioner's role as a promoter ended after incorporation and board constitution, hence non-submission of financial results and non-compliance could not be attributed to him. The SEBI circular allowing freezing of promoter's demat accounts in other securities to the extent of liability was held contrary to statutory requirements. Freezing securities in companies other than the defaulter company without following principles of natural justice was deemed illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional under Articles 14, 21, and 300A. Recovery from demat accounts must adhere to Depositories Act provisions. The impugned action of freezing petitioner's demat account was grossly illegal, and the petitioner was allowed to deal with all shares. SEBI/BSE/NSE were directed to jointly pay Rs. 30 lakhs to the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
