Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
Embezzlement losses in charitable institutions remain allowable when misappropriation is established, irrecoverable, and not a specified-person benefi...
National long-distance undertaking status supports deduction where separately licensed infrastructure, resources, revenue, and expenditure establish c...
Agency reimbursement income follows contractual deposit-liability computation, while pending deposit collections do not constitute deemed-dividend loa...
Page of 4891
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
201 to 220 of 97809 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismisses petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings against anonymized accused arising from IPO-related misconduct, holding that a SEBI consent order and payments of disgorgement/settlement fees do not extinguish or bar prosecution. The court finds allegations disclose prima facie criminality and deliberate intent to obtain unjust enrichment, adversely affecting retail investors and the securities market; such societal and economic offences cannot be neutralized by regulator-set settlements. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Article 227 does not warrant quashing where offences implicate public interest and criminal intent. Accordingly, the consent order and monetary restitution to SEBI do not affect or preclude continuation of prosecutions, and the petitions are dismissed.
HC dismisses petitions seeking quashment of criminal proceedings against anonymized accused arising from IPO-related misconduct, holding that a SEBI consent order and payments of disgorgement/settlement fees do not extinguish or bar prosecution. The court finds allegations disclose prima facie criminality and deliberate intent to obtain unjust enrichment, adversely affecting retail investors and the securities market; such societal and economic offences cannot be neutralized by regulator-set settlements. Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Article 227 does not warrant quashing where offences implicate public interest and criminal intent. Accordingly, the consent order and monetary restitution to SEBI do not affect or preclude continuation of prosecutions, and the petitions are dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4891 
