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" ?
The AT upheld SEBI's monetary penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs against the appellants for violating Principle 4 of Schedule A of PIT Regulations. The tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments that information about a potential Facebook investment was not concrete or required disclosure until a binding agreement was signed. The AT determined that the company had an obligation to authenticate and promptly disclose unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI), even if media speculation existed. The selective leakage of information did not absolve the company from its disclosure responsibilities. The tribunal found the appellants failed to make timely and comprehensive disclosure, thereby undermining market integrity and investor transparency.
The AT upheld SEBI's monetary penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs against the appellants for violating Principle 4 of Schedule A of PIT Regulations. The tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments that information about a potential Facebook investment was not concrete or required disclosure until a binding agreement was signed. The AT determined that the company had an obligation to authenticate and promptly disclose unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI), even if media speculation existed. The selective leakage of information did not absolve the company from its disclosure responsibilities. The tribunal found the appellants failed to make timely and comprehensive disclosure, thereby undermining market integrity and investor transparency.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
