https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464549 AT held that the CRA exercised due diligence in revising the NCD rating from "BWR A" to "BWR BB-" and the AO's order penalizing the appellant for delay in recognition of default on that ground cannot be sustained. However, the tribunal affirmed the AO's finding that the founder director's involvement in fee fixation violated Clause 2.12 of the IOSCO Code of Conduct. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed: the rating-related penalty was set aside while the finding of Code violation was upheld. en-us Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 20:06:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464549 AT held that the CRA exercised due diligence in revising the NCD rating from "BWR A" to "BWR BB-" and the AO's order penalizing the appellant for delay in recognition of default on that ground cannot be sustained. However, the tribunal affirmed the AO's finding that the founder director's involvement in fee fixation violated Clause 2.12 of the IOSCO Code of Conduct. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed: the rating-related penalty was set aside while the finding of Code violation was upheld. Case-Laws SEBI Mon, 03 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464549