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...
SC held SEBI's subsequent disgorgement order dated 28.09.2018 was legally unsustainable. The regulatory body cannot pass multiple final orders on the same cause of action after its initial order dated 31.07.2014 under Section 11B. The court critically noted SEBI's procedural delays and lack of expeditious action, emphasizing that reopening proceedings without just cause undermines regulatory integrity. The tribunal's directions for investor compensation were deemed improper, as the earlier order had already attained finality. While acknowledging the fraudulent acts by the corporate entities, the court rejected the tribunal's cost awards as unjustified, effectively nullifying SEBI's post-2014 regulatory actions against the involved parties.
SC held SEBI's subsequent disgorgement order dated 28.09.2018 was legally unsustainable. The regulatory body cannot pass multiple final orders on the same cause of action after its initial order dated 31.07.2014 under Section 11B. The court critically noted SEBI's procedural delays and lack of expeditious action, emphasizing that reopening proceedings without just cause undermines regulatory integrity. The tribunal's directions for investor compensation were deemed improper, as the earlier order had already attained finality. While acknowledging the fraudulent acts by the corporate entities, the court rejected the tribunal's cost awards as unjustified, effectively nullifying SEBI's post-2014 regulatory actions against the involved parties.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
