Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
