Abuse of dominant position allegations against an exchange found not prima facie; regulator reliance on sectoral expertise upheld and no investigation...
Regulatory consolidation for investment advisers: SEBI issues master circular consolidating guidance and prescribing compliance, reporting, fees and s...
Reopening of assessment beyond four years failed because the recorded reasons did not show any omission by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and relied only on material already on record; the reassessment notice and proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12 were therefore invalid. On merits, the addition under section 68 for share capital and share premium was deleted because the assessee produced evidence of investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness, including banking and corporate records. The Tribunal also noted that the pre-2013 position did not require proof of source of source, and that premium-related doubts, section 56(2)(viib), and the later amendment to section 68 did not justify the addition on the facts stated.
Reopening of assessment beyond four years failed because the recorded reasons did not show any omission by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, and relied only on material already on record; the reassessment notice and proceedings for A.Y. 2011-12 were therefore invalid. On merits, the addition under section 68 for share capital and share premium was deleted because the assessee produced evidence of investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness, including banking and corporate records. The Tribunal also noted that the pre-2013 position did not require proof of source of source, and that premium-related doubts, section 56(2)(viib), and the later amendment to section 68 did not justify the addition on the facts stated.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.