Imported cement concessional duty exemption under Notification 4/2006 challenged over RSP misdeclaration; demand, interest and s.114A penalty set asid...
Body-worn camera recordings for Customs baggage checks: new SOP mandates full passenger-interaction capture, secure storage, privacy safeguards, stric...
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 4828 
Join Channel 
