Bona fide disclosure requirements govern under-reporting penalties, and post-penalty immunity applications cannot secure available statutory protectio...
Certificate-of-origin verification procedure governs preferential customs benefits; denial without retroactive verification was set aside with consequ...
Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction and mandatory investigation requirements invalidated cancellation of an insolvency professional's registration and...
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...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1221 to 1240 of 96092 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
