Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
