NPCI-based bank account validation for IEC applications and modifications enables real-time validation; incorrect details block submission or trigger ...
Creation/Invocation of pledge of securities through depository system: standardized pledge forms, notice requirement and invocation notifications to p...
Calendar Spread margin benefit for Single Stock Derivatives suspended on expiry day for expiring contracts; exchanges must implement systems and rule ...
Proportionate interest, unexplained credits and partner remuneration disputed; proofs of fund nexus and lender identity were decisive and disallowance...
Capital gains valuation from stamp assessment versus net consideration for residential reinvestment: deemed stamp value replaced for gains but not for...
Whether the impugned purchases constituted a benami transaction under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act was determined against the appellant, as the sale deeds and contemporaneous documents showed the requisite arrangement between the ostensible owner and the beneficial owner, and bank statements established that consideration was paid directly by the appellant; consequently, the benami finding and related orders were upheld. Denial of cross-examination was rejected because such right is not automatic and the conclusion rested substantially on documentary evidence; hence no prejudice was shown. The challenge to attachment for want of notice under s.26(5) was rejected on a plain reading of the provision; attachment was sustained and the appeals were dismissed. - AT
Whether the impugned purchases constituted a benami transaction under s.2(9)(A) of the 1988 Act was determined against the appellant, as the sale deeds and contemporaneous documents showed the requisite arrangement between the ostensible owner and the beneficial owner, and bank statements established that consideration was paid directly by the appellant; consequently, the benami finding and related orders were upheld. Denial of cross-examination was rejected because such right is not automatic and the conclusion rested substantially on documentary evidence; hence no prejudice was shown. The challenge to attachment for want of notice under s.26(5) was rejected on a plain reading of the provision; attachment was sustained and the appeals were dismissed. - AT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.