Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Page of 4814
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1461 to 1480 of 96262 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 4814 
Join Channel 
