Arrest safeguards and transit remand requirements invalidated detention following inter-State transfer without communicated grounds or magistrate auth...
Arrest safeguards require disclosed grounds, relative intimation and transit remand, while duplicate prosecution under the CGST framework is unsustain...
Document Identification Number defects can invalidate GST assessments, with delayed challenges entertained conditionally where patent irregularities e...
Windmill commissioning evidence supported higher depreciation where grid connection and electricity generation proved operational use before the relev...
Pharmaceutical promotion and transfer-pricing comparability principles limited disallowances, while uncorroborated search allegations and unsupported ...
Business expenditure substantiation supports scrap credits, statutory payments and expense claims, while depreciation requires proof of actual busines...
Page of 4794
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
621 to 640 of 95875 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 
of 4794
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
