Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
The HC held that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Appellant-Board's Adjudicating Officer was validly founded, clarifying that under Rule 5(1) it is the AO who must first inquire into and determine whether a violation under Section 15-I, including Section 15A(b), has occurred. The Single Judge's view that the notice was issued solely for imposition of penalty without prior formation of opinion was found erroneous and set aside. Concurrently, the HC affirmed that the PIT Regulations do not require a prior order under Regulation 14 or exhaustion of remedial measures thereunder as a condition precedent to invoking adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act.
The HC held that the Show Cause Notice issued by the Appellant-Board's Adjudicating Officer was validly founded, clarifying that under Rule 5(1) it is the AO who must first inquire into and determine whether a violation under Section 15-I, including Section 15A(b), has occurred. The Single Judge's view that the notice was issued solely for imposition of penalty without prior formation of opinion was found erroneous and set aside. Concurrently, the HC affirmed that the PIT Regulations do not require a prior order under Regulation 14 or exhaustion of remedial measures thereunder as a condition precedent to invoking adjudicatory powers under Chapter VI-A of the SEBI Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
