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...
AT allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order against the...
Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed as regulator failed to prove nexus or manipulative scheme; sale genuine - s.12A(a)-(c), Regs 3(a)-(d),4(1),4(2)(a)
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
AT allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order against the appellants. The Tribunal held that the regulator failed to establish a nexus between the Group-1 entities (appellants) and Group-2 counter-parties and that the appellants traded only on two days of the investigation period at market price. The evidence did not support a finding of a coordinated manipulative scheme or artificial inflation of volumes in the illiquid scrip. The appellants' sale of their entire shareholding in Patch 1 was held to be genuine disposition upon observing price movement and, therefore, not violative of section 12A(a)-(c) of the SEBI Act or Regulations 3(a)-(d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) of the PFUTP Regulations.
AT allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned order against the appellants. The Tribunal held that the regulator failed to establish a nexus between the Group-1 entities (appellants) and Group-2 counter-parties and that the appellants traded only on two days of the investigation period at market price. The evidence did not support a finding of a coordinated manipulative scheme or artificial inflation of volumes in the illiquid scrip. The appellants' sale of their entire shareholding in Patch 1 was held to be genuine disposition upon observing price movement and, therefore, not violative of section 12A(a)-(c) of the SEBI Act or Regulations 3(a)-(d) and 4(1), 4(2)(a) of the PFUTP Regulations.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.