<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (8) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346482</link>
    <description>The court addressed discrepancies in penalty imposition among individuals involved in trading activities, noting that the respondent faced a lower penalty without a specific finding of front running. Disagreeing with the merging of orders, the court remanded the matter for a fresh review by the Appellate Tribunal to ensure fairness and clarity in the case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:41:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346482</link>
      <description>The court addressed discrepancies in penalty imposition among individuals involved in trading activities, noting that the respondent faced a lower penalty without a specific finding of front running. Disagreeing with the merging of orders, the court remanded the matter for a fresh review by the Appellate Tribunal to ensure fairness and clarity in the case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>