Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The AT partially upheld penalties against a registered investment advisory firm for multiple regulatory violations under SEBI's IA Regulations. The Tribunal rejected appellant's procedural objections regarding delay in proceedings, double jeopardy claims, and alleged denial of natural justice. Of thirteen alleged violations, the AT affirmed nine, including failures in KYC procedures, risk profiling, suitability assessments, disclosure requirements, fee charging practices, and compliance obligations. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence for four allegations related to execution services, client complaints, solicitation through websites, and qualification requirements. Considering the repeated violations of multiple nature that could have seriously impacted market integrity and investor interests, the AT reduced the penalty from 1 crore to 70 lakhs.
The AT partially upheld penalties against a registered investment advisory firm for multiple regulatory violations under SEBI's IA Regulations. The Tribunal rejected appellant's procedural objections regarding delay in proceedings, double jeopardy claims, and alleged denial of natural justice. Of thirteen alleged violations, the AT affirmed nine, including failures in KYC procedures, risk profiling, suitability assessments, disclosure requirements, fee charging practices, and compliance obligations. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence for four allegations related to execution services, client complaints, solicitation through websites, and qualification requirements. Considering the repeated violations of multiple nature that could have seriously impacted market integrity and investor interests, the AT reduced the penalty from 1 crore to 70 lakhs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
