<?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>SEBI&#039;s Regulatory Role Upheld; Negative Remarks in Paragraph 20 Moderated Due to Case-Specific Facts.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51571</link>
    <description>May be there was some remiss on the part of SEBI to act as a regulator, but casting aspersion was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the adverse observations made in Paragraph No. 20 are hereby diluted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:36:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:36:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602616" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>SEBI&#039;s Regulatory Role Upheld; Negative Remarks in Paragraph 20 Moderated Due to Case-Specific Facts.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51571</link>
      <description>May be there was some remiss on the part of SEBI to act as a regulator, but casting aspersion was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the adverse observations made in Paragraph No. 20 are hereby diluted.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 08:36:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=51571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>