<?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>Penalty under s.15HB reduced to Rs 2,00,000 for NISM and Covid-era procedural lapses, violations upheld</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94472</link>
    <description>The AT partly allowed the appeal, upholding the findings of violations relating to absence of NISM certification of a director, delay in processing duplicate share certificates, and delay in transmission of securities, constituting contraventions of applicable SEBI regulations and circulars, thereby attracting liability under s.15HB of the SEBI Act. However, taking into account that the concerned director was 75 years old, plausibly not technologically adept, and that the other procedural lapses occurred during the Covid period, the AT held that the original monetary penalty was excessive. In exercise of appellate discretion, the AT reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,00,000, holding this sufficient to meet the ends of justice. All other directions and findings in the impugned order were affirmed. No order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=867013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Penalty under s.15HB reduced to Rs 2,00,000 for NISM and Covid-era procedural lapses, violations upheld</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94472</link>
      <description>The AT partly allowed the appeal, upholding the findings of violations relating to absence of NISM certification of a director, delay in processing duplicate share certificates, and delay in transmission of securities, constituting contraventions of applicable SEBI regulations and circulars, thereby attracting liability under s.15HB of the SEBI Act. However, taking into account that the concerned director was 75 years old, plausibly not technologically adept, and that the other procedural lapses occurred during the Covid period, the AT held that the original monetary penalty was excessive. In exercise of appellate discretion, the AT reduced the penalty to Rs. 2,00,000, holding this sufficient to meet the ends of justice. All other directions and findings in the impugned order were affirmed. No order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 08:55:41 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94472</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>