Retrospective application of beneficial circulars upheld, binding officers and granting post adjudication relief where adjudication occurred after cir...
Admissibility of Investigation Statements requires witness examination before the adjudicating authority; otherwise statements cannot sustain a penalt...
Transaction value and connected person treatment in excise valuation: proprietary concerns not inter connected undertakings, relief on valuation and c...
Appointment of Registrars as adjudicating officers under Companies Act reallocates territorial jurisdiction and sets appeal route to Regional Director...
Composite supply of drilling services and site specific chemicals characterised as composite supply; prior advance rulings set aside, tax rate left op...
The Tribunal held that the statutory promoter-group test under the ICDR Regulations could not be displaced by a pleaded family arrangement; on the admitted shareholding and control findings, the relevant entities were counted in the promoter group, causing public shareholding to fall below the prescribed minimum and resulting in breach of minimum public shareholding norms. It further found, on preponderance of probability, that trading in an illiquid scrip through connected persons, with concentrated inter se trades around the delisting exercise, showed an artificial attempt to project liquidity and facilitate delisting, so the fraudulent trading finding was affirmed. Debarment was reduced only for specified appellants on proportionality grounds.
The Tribunal held that the statutory promoter-group test under the ICDR Regulations could not be displaced by a pleaded family arrangement; on the admitted shareholding and control findings, the relevant entities were counted in the promoter group, causing public shareholding to fall below the prescribed minimum and resulting in breach of minimum public shareholding norms. It further found, on preponderance of probability, that trading in an illiquid scrip through connected persons, with concentrated inter se trades around the delisting exercise, showed an artificial attempt to project liquidity and facilitate delisting, so the fraudulent trading finding was affirmed. Debarment was reduced only for specified appellants on proportionality grounds.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
