https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467427 The article addresses whether an adjudicating officer's final order on identical facts and issues gives rise to issue estoppel preventing a contrary view in subsequent proceedings and whether Section 11B directions are sustainable. It explains that where an AO, after inquiry under Section 15I, finally determined absence of manipulative intent and SEBI did not revise that order under the statutory power, the AO's determination became binding; consequently exercise of Section 11B to reach a contrary conclusion was precluded and the directions were quashed. It also notes a separate disclosure default was identified but no additional penalty imposed due to prior debarment. en-us Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Mar 2026 13:16:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467427 The article addresses whether an adjudicating officer's final order on identical facts and issues gives rise to issue estoppel preventing a contrary view in subsequent proceedings and whether Section 11B directions are sustainable. It explains that where an AO, after inquiry under Section 15I, finally determined absence of manipulative intent and SEBI did not revise that order under the statutory power, the AO's determination became binding; consequently exercise of Section 11B to reach a contrary conclusion was precluded and the directions were quashed. It also notes a separate disclosure default was identified but no additional penalty imposed due to prior debarment. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467427