Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
AT dismissed the appeal seeking restitution and refund of trading losses allegedly caused by a technical glitch in the stock exchange trading system. The appellant, an experienced securities market participant, had executed the mandatory risk disclosure declaration under the applicable Master Circular, thereby acknowledging the inherent risks of electronic trading. AT noted SEBI's regulatory finding that the glitch was short-lived, with most gateways restored within minutes, and held that the appellant's contrary claim of a two-hour disruption required evidentiary proof. As the principal relief sought was compensatory damages of Rs. 53.13 lakhs, AT held such a tortious claim lies exclusively before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction to award damages, AT found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it.
AT dismissed the appeal seeking restitution and refund of trading losses allegedly caused by a technical glitch in the stock exchange trading system. The appellant, an experienced securities market participant, had executed the mandatory risk disclosure declaration under the applicable Master Circular, thereby acknowledging the inherent risks of electronic trading. AT noted SEBI's regulatory finding that the glitch was short-lived, with most gateways restored within minutes, and held that the appellant's contrary claim of a two-hour disruption required evidentiary proof. As the principal relief sought was compensatory damages of Rs. 53.13 lakhs, AT held such a tortious claim lies exclusively before a civil court of competent jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction to award damages, AT found the appeal devoid of merit and dismissed it.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
