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 4827
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96536 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, 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.