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 HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order that set aside the majority arbitral award and upheld the dissenting award, thereby permitting recovery of losses in the demat account. The court held there was no jurisdictional error under Section 37 or excess of power under Section 34 of the Act. The appellant had actual knowledge and post-trade confirmation of repeated transactions over three months and failed to protest, so absence of pre-trade authorisation under exchange regulations could not vitiate confirmed trades or excuse resultant losses. Any violation of trading regulations may attract regulatory or disciplinary consequences for the broker but does not entitle a constituent who confirmed transactions to repudiate settled trading losses.
The HC dismissed the appeal, affirming the Single Judge's order that set aside the majority arbitral award and upheld the dissenting award, thereby permitting recovery of losses in the demat account. The court held there was no jurisdictional error under Section 37 or excess of power under Section 34 of the Act. The appellant had actual knowledge and post-trade confirmation of repeated transactions over three months and failed to protest, so absence of pre-trade authorisation under exchange regulations could not vitiate confirmed trades or excuse resultant losses. Any violation of trading regulations may attract regulatory or disciplinary consequences for the broker but does not entitle a constituent who confirmed transactions to repudiate settled trading losses.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
