Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Permanent establishment deductions upheld for expatriate salaries, direct costs and trading losses, while head-office costs require fresh classificati...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1521 to 1540 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4828 
Join Channel 
