Commercial vehicle depreciation, scientifically determined warranty provisions and exempt-income disallowances were resolved in favour of the taxpayer...
Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
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 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
