Donor-directed corpus contributions retain capital character despite exemption claims under section 10(23C)(vi), preventing their treatment as taxable...
Enhanced tax-audit threshold applies where banking records establish compliant non-cash receipts and payments, eliminating penalty exposure for audit ...
Transfer pricing consistency protects identical non-interest-bearing debenture terms from a later notional-interest adjustment without valid statutory...
Rectification of debatable deduction claims cannot reverse scrutiny-approved co-operative society interest income deductions as apparent record errors...
Cash-method accounting bars presumptive interest taxation, while unsupported securities and share-trading additions require reliable material and veri...
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 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
