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 Board found Noticees violated Regulation 13(b) of IA Regulations and Clause 1 of Code of Conduct for Investment Advisers by conducting unregistered investment advisory activities through six partnership firms while failing to disclose these activities during SEBI registration applications. The Designated Authority established that Noticees suppressed material facts and continued unauthorized advisory services even after obtaining individual registrations. Although DA recommended three-year restraint from new assignments, the Board noted Noticees were already debarred from securities market for two years and penalized Rs. 18,00,000 under separate proceedings. Considering existing sanctions, the Board exercised powers under Section 19 SEBI Act 1992 read with Regulation 27(5) to impose proportionate six-month restraint from accepting new assignments or contracts, finding three-year restriction disproportionate to meet justice requirements.
The Board found Noticees violated Regulation 13(b) of IA Regulations and Clause 1 of Code of Conduct for Investment Advisers by conducting unregistered investment advisory activities through six partnership firms while failing to disclose these activities during SEBI registration applications. The Designated Authority established that Noticees suppressed material facts and continued unauthorized advisory services even after obtaining individual registrations. Although DA recommended three-year restraint from new assignments, the Board noted Noticees were already debarred from securities market for two years and penalized Rs. 18,00,000 under separate proceedings. Considering existing sanctions, the Board exercised powers under Section 19 SEBI Act 1992 read with Regulation 27(5) to impose proportionate six-month restraint from accepting new assignments or contracts, finding three-year restriction disproportionate to meet justice requirements.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
