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...
Absence of pre-trade authorisation is not conclusive of unauthorised trading and, by itself, may only trigger regulatory consequences; a client who does not object within a reasonable time cannot ordinarily disown the trades. Here, however, the HC upheld the arbitral award because the arbitrator found, on WhatsApp messages, audio recordings and transaction data, that the trades were manipulated, induced by promises of high returns, and continued under pressure, amounting to blatantly unauthorised and prejudicial trading. The Court also held that the broker was vicariously liable for fraudulent acts carried out by its Alliance Partner and employees in the course of the broker's business, so no patent illegality or perversity justified interference under Section 37.
Absence of pre-trade authorisation is not conclusive of unauthorised trading and, by itself, may only trigger regulatory consequences; a client who does not object within a reasonable time cannot ordinarily disown the trades. Here, however, the HC upheld the arbitral award because the arbitrator found, on WhatsApp messages, audio recordings and transaction data, that the trades were manipulated, induced by promises of high returns, and continued under pressure, amounting to blatantly unauthorised and prejudicial trading. The Court also held that the broker was vicariously liable for fraudulent acts carried out by its Alliance Partner and employees in the course of the broker's business, so no patent illegality or perversity justified interference under Section 37.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
