Online bond platforms may offer overseas-regulated products and tax-specific bonds subject to disclosures, compliance safeguards and revised complianc...
Corporate guarantee valuation permits actual ascertainable commission while barring retroactive application and extended-period penalties for bona fid...
Proper-officer jurisdiction under UPGST penalty provisions upheld; participation on merits prevents bypassing the statutory appellate remedy through w...
Transitioned CENVAT credit may validly satisfy mandatory pre-deposit requirements for legacy service tax appeals through Electronic Credit Ledger debi...
Building-plan sanction charges require statutory authority; unauthorised fees and GST were quashed, while labour cess must follow prescribed collectio...
Pure-agent exclusion fails where hotel booking facilitators receive third-party services themselves, making entire customer consideration taxable as r...
Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice issued by SEBI. The key findings were: the arguments of delay, laches, review, revisit, double jeopardy, and res judicata were not accepted to quash the notice at this stage, allowing petitioners to raise such defenses before SEBI. The Court found no non-application of mind by SEBI in issuing the notice based on the available material. SEBI agreed to provide certain information related to an earlier complaint within two weeks. Petitioners were granted four weeks after receiving that information to file their response to the show cause notice. The Court declined to interfere further, stating that fairness is a two-way process, and prolonging adjudication unnecessarily should be avoided. The extraordinary jurisdiction was not meant for stalling proceedings at every stage.
The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the show cause notice issued by SEBI. The key findings were: the arguments of delay, laches, review, revisit, double jeopardy, and res judicata were not accepted to quash the notice at this stage, allowing petitioners to raise such defenses before SEBI. The Court found no non-application of mind by SEBI in issuing the notice based on the available material. SEBI agreed to provide certain information related to an earlier complaint within two weeks. Petitioners were granted four weeks after receiving that information to file their response to the show cause notice. The Court declined to interfere further, stating that fairness is a two-way process, and prolonging adjudication unnecessarily should be avoided. The extraordinary jurisdiction was not meant for stalling proceedings at every stage.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
