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...
Defined public benefit can retain charitable character; registration renewal requires examining genuine activities and legal compliance, not surplus a...
Capital reduction is distinct from share buy-back, preventing buy-back tax; restructuring interest and related business deductions also survive scruti...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
981 to 1000 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4792
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
