Transfer-pricing treatment of ITeS margins excludes pass-through tax recoveries and separate delayed-receivables interest after working-capital adjust...
Capacity-utilisation adjustments under TNMM can neutralise substantiated COVID-related idle costs where underutilisation materially affects profitabil...
TNMM functional comparability requires excluding rice manufacturers from a pure Basmati rice trader's benchmark and recognising operating export recei...
Working-capital adjustment subsumes delayed-receivable effects in TNMM benchmarking of captive software-development services, avoiding separate notion...
Transfer-pricing comparability requires exclusion of financially illogical super-profit comparables and correction of unsupported annual-report and ma...
Charitable character assessment preserves Section 80G approval despite inclusive spiritual teachings and incidental religious expenditure within the s...
Penalty proceedings for cash-loan acceptance require assessment proceedings and recorded Assessing Officer satisfaction; absent these, the proceedings...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 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" ?
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.