Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
AT held that the company and its KMPs engaged in self-funding of preferential allotment in breach of s.77(2) Companies Act and Regulations 3,4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, and that several allottee and conduit entities aided the scheme; the Tribunal found a proximate fund flow of Rs.3.42 crore originating from the company into preferential subscriptions and sustained liability for that quantum. However, AT accepted that conduit entities had received Rs.10.47 crore and that no sufficient linkage was established for the excess transfers; considering those facts and attendant evidence, AT allowed the appeal challenging the impugned penalties as applied jointly and severally to the appellants, while rejecting delay-based dismissal.
AT held that the company and its KMPs engaged in self-funding of preferential allotment in breach of s.77(2) Companies Act and Regulations 3,4(1) of the PFUTP Regulations, and that several allottee and conduit entities aided the scheme; the Tribunal found a proximate fund flow of Rs.3.42 crore originating from the company into preferential subscriptions and sustained liability for that quantum. However, AT accepted that conduit entities had received Rs.10.47 crore and that no sufficient linkage was established for the excess transfers; considering those facts and attendant evidence, AT allowed the appeal challenging the impugned penalties as applied jointly and severally to the appellants, while rejecting delay-based dismissal.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
