Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Validity of SEBI Settlement Proceedings Regulations, specifically Regulations 6(1)(f) and 13(2)(ba) of the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018. It examines allegations against noticees of acting in concert while acquiring shares without required disclosures, creating false trading appearances, and manipulative trading practices. The court held that the allegations in the show cause notice, if proven, are grave. It observed that the petitioners' objective was to stall adjudication proceedings by filing settlement applications and refusing to cooperate. The court rejected arguments of excessive delegation and manifest arbitrariness in the Regulations, stating they conform to the parent Acts and do not lack logical consistency or determining principles. It upheld the rejection of the petitioners' settlement proposal, finding the conditions imposed reasonable considering the allegations. The court criticized attempts to stall proceedings through constitutional challenges and interim relief pleas, emphasizing a pragmatic approach balancing defaulters' and public interests.
Validity of SEBI Settlement Proceedings Regulations, specifically Regulations 6(1)(f) and 13(2)(ba) of the SEBI (Settlement Proceedings) Regulations, 2018. It examines allegations against noticees of acting in concert while acquiring shares without required disclosures, creating false trading appearances, and manipulative trading practices. The court held that the allegations in the show cause notice, if proven, are grave. It observed that the petitioners' objective was to stall adjudication proceedings by filing settlement applications and refusing to cooperate. The court rejected arguments of excessive delegation and manifest arbitrariness in the Regulations, stating they conform to the parent Acts and do not lack logical consistency or determining principles. It upheld the rejection of the petitioners' settlement proposal, finding the conditions imposed reasonable considering the allegations. The court criticized attempts to stall proceedings through constitutional challenges and interim relief pleas, emphasizing a pragmatic approach balancing defaulters' and public interests.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
