Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Page of 4809
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
321 to 340 of 96174 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The AT upheld SEBI's discretion to levy interest on outstanding registration fees as per Regulation 5 of Schedule-III of Stockbrokers Regulations, 2002, which mandatorily provides for charging 15% interest. The AT ruled that SEBI had no discretion in charging interest, which is compensatory in nature. It directed SEBI to credit interest at 15% p.a. for the brief period from September 6, 2003 to October 1, 2003 when the appellant had a credit balance, but dismissed other claims regarding interest calculation since the appellant had already received credit for interest from 2006 to 2019.
The AT upheld SEBI's discretion to levy interest on outstanding registration fees as per Regulation 5 of Schedule-III of Stockbrokers Regulations, 2002, which mandatorily provides for charging 15% interest. The AT ruled that SEBI had no discretion in charging interest, which is compensatory in nature. It directed SEBI to credit interest at 15% p.a. for the brief period from September 6, 2003 to October 1, 2003 when the appellant had a credit balance, but dismissed other claims regarding interest calculation since the appellant had already received credit for interest from 2006 to 2019.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
