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 AT, on appeal from an adjudication alleging front-running under Section 12(A)(c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), 3(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(q) of the PFUTP Regulations, concluded that the charge was not established on the preponderance of probabilities and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that an external forensic report obtained during the investigation implicated connections between the complainant and a third party and that the adjudicating officer's failure to address that report warranted an adverse inference against the regulator. Absent satisfactory treatment of that material, the appellant's alleged advance trading could not be proved and the penalty was set aside.
The AT, on appeal from an adjudication alleging front-running under Section 12(A)(c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), 3(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(q) of the PFUTP Regulations, concluded that the charge was not established on the preponderance of probabilities and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that an external forensic report obtained during the investigation implicated connections between the complainant and a third party and that the adjudicating officer's failure to address that report warranted an adverse inference against the regulator. Absent satisfactory treatment of that material, the appellant's alleged advance trading could not be proved and the penalty was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
