Dispute Resolution Panel objections must reach both prescribed forums; otherwise assessment may proceed and statutory appeal remains the proper remedy...
Political contribution deductions require recipient party compliance with contribution-reporting conditions; banking-channel donations alone do not qu...
Aggregation under TNMM prevents selective testing of intra-group services without comparable uncontrolled transactions, while appellate additional cla...
Protective assessment cannot duplicate identical receipts under competing characterisations; remote services did not establish a taxable permanent est...
Current account treatment of overseas tournament services removed most FEMA findings, but excess EEFC remittance and delayed repatriation remained bre...
Modification of bail conditions remains available through inherent jurisdiction where onerous deposits undermine justice and cannot recover disputed d...
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 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
