Commitment proceedings gain extended timelines, structured defect refiling, and automatic resumption of inquiry after the adjusted completion period e...
Centralised assessment transfer becomes unwarranted once the searched person's assessment is complete, requiring restoration to the appropriate charge...
Co-operative deduction eligibility excludes refund and commercial-bank interest, while qualifying co-operative investments require entity-wise verific...
Enhanced tax rate on surrendered unexplained income applies prospectively, while cash-deposit telescoping requires verification of available surrender...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
141 to 160 of 96140 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 4807 
Join Channel 
