<?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>2019 (11) TMI 845 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388596</link>
    <description>Pooling of funds from numerous investors for a land-based solar project, combined with the company&#039;s decisive control and the investors&#039; lack of day-to-day management control, was treated as satisfying the statutory ingredients of a collective investment scheme, making SEBI registration mandatory. The absence of registration was therefore a statutory violation. For the adjudication penalty, the note records that liability arose from carrying on the scheme without registration, and the penalty amount was considered in light of the statutory ceiling and mitigating factors such as recovery and repayment efforts. The penalty was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:20:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=594611" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 845 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388596</link>
      <description>Pooling of funds from numerous investors for a land-based solar project, combined with the company&#039;s decisive control and the investors&#039; lack of day-to-day management control, was treated as satisfying the statutory ingredients of a collective investment scheme, making SEBI registration mandatory. The absence of registration was therefore a statutory violation. For the adjudication penalty, the note records that liability arose from carrying on the scheme without registration, and the penalty amount was considered in light of the statutory ceiling and mitigating factors such as recovery and repayment efforts. The penalty was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388596</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>