Authority rules B+G+31 service apartment is commercial building construction, not multi-storey residential for tax classification under RERA definitio...
Resale price method upheld for distribution; assessee's margins accepted and certain transfer-pricing adjustments deleted due to documented reimbursem...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
9821 to 9840 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trustees, not the investment advisor, bear primary responsibility to effectuate the trust purpose and to wind up the schemes under Section 15 of the Indian Trust Act. The Tribunal confirmed that Schemes I, II and IV remained unwound and upheld SEBI's finding of contravention of the VCF Regulations; however, having regard to the appellants' status as senior citizens and attachment of the fund's assets by the Enforcement Directorate, the AT reduced the monetary sanction. The Tribunal directed a consolidated penalty of Rs.2,00,000 each to be imposed on the three appellants in respect of the non-winding up, and otherwise affirmed the regulatory determination.
AT allowed the appeal in part, holding that the trustees, not the investment advisor, bear primary responsibility to effectuate the trust purpose and to wind up the schemes under Section 15 of the Indian Trust Act. The Tribunal confirmed that Schemes I, II and IV remained unwound and upheld SEBI's finding of contravention of the VCF Regulations; however, having regard to the appellants' status as senior citizens and attachment of the fund's assets by the Enforcement Directorate, the AT reduced the monetary sanction. The Tribunal directed a consolidated penalty of Rs.2,00,000 each to be imposed on the three appellants in respect of the non-winding up, and otherwise affirmed the regulatory determination.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.