Personal liberty safeguards restrict arrest after court-directed GST appearance, requiring interim release where authorities overreach pending proceed...
Alternative statutory remedy and delay bar GST writ challenges despite pending rectification, while distinct subject matter permits parallel proceedin...
Unverified Insight Portal Information Cannot Justify Reassessment Without a Verified Taxpayer-Specific Income-Escape Nexus or Demonstrated Application...
Assessing Officer jurisdiction after statutory transfer invalidates reassessment notices issued by transferor officers and nullifies resulting proceed...
Consequential appeal-effect orders must implement rectification deleting working-capital adjustments and reconsider the resulting arm's-length range c...
The AT partly allowed the appeal, upholding the findings of violations relating to absence of NISM certification of a director, delay in processing duplicate share certificates, and delay in transmission of securities, constituting contraventions of applicable SEBI regulations and circulars, thereby attracting liability under s.15HB of the SEBI Act. However, taking into account that the concerned director was 75 years old, plausibly not technologically adept, and that the other procedural lapses occurred during the Covid period, the AT held that the original monetary penalty was excessive. In exercise of appellate discretion, the AT reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,00,000, holding this sufficient to meet the ends of justice. All other directions and findings in the impugned order were affirmed. No order as to costs.
The AT partly allowed the appeal, upholding the findings of violations relating to absence of NISM certification of a director, delay in processing duplicate share certificates, and delay in transmission of securities, constituting contraventions of applicable SEBI regulations and circulars, thereby attracting liability under s.15HB of the SEBI Act. However, taking into account that the concerned director was 75 years old, plausibly not technologically adept, and that the other procedural lapses occurred during the Covid period, the AT held that the original monetary penalty was excessive. In exercise of appellate discretion, the AT reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,00,000, holding this sufficient to meet the ends of justice. All other directions and findings in the impugned order were affirmed. No order as to costs.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4879 
