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 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
161 to 180 of 96556 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 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.