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...
Proceeds of crime were considered regarding the refund amount from unsuccessful IPO applications due to malpractices and manipulations by certain entities. The SEBI determined unlawful gains by taking the difference between the sale and allotment amounts, while the FIR/ECIR recorded the entire amount as 'proceeds of crime' used for cheating the public. The SEBI order was within its provisions, distinct from the Act of 2002. There were no discrepancies or contradictions in the amount mentioned in the orders. The allegation of discrimination in treatment was unsubstantiated. The appeals failed as none of the arguments raised by the appellant had merit.
Proceeds of crime were considered regarding the refund amount from unsuccessful IPO applications due to malpractices and manipulations by certain entities. The SEBI determined unlawful gains by taking the difference between the sale and allotment amounts, while the FIR/ECIR recorded the entire amount as 'proceeds of crime' used for cheating the public. The SEBI order was within its provisions, distinct from the Act of 2002. There were no discrepancies or contradictions in the amount mentioned in the orders. The allegation of discrimination in treatment was unsubstantiated. The appeals failed as none of the arguments raised by the appellant had merit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
