https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235698 The Bombay High Court held that an advance-ruling authority, after admitting an application, cannot refuse to answer the questions merely on a suspicion that the transaction is illegal or contrary to SEBI guidelines. Any discretion to decline a ruling can be exercised only where fraud or illegality is clearly established on the record, not on conjecture. As SEBI's communication indicated that the agreement had not been acted upon for commercial reasons and that full disclosure had been made in the IPO documents, the refusal lacked factual basis. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on the original questions. en-us Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235698 The Bombay High Court held that an advance-ruling authority, after admitting an application, cannot refuse to answer the questions merely on a suspicion that the transaction is illegal or contrary to SEBI guidelines. Any discretion to decline a ruling can be exercised only where fraud or illegality is clearly established on the record, not on conjecture. As SEBI's communication indicated that the agreement had not been acted upon for commercial reasons and that full disclosure had been made in the IPO documents, the refusal lacked factual basis. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on the original questions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235698