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 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 
