<?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>Statutory associate-company test defeated consolidation and related-party disclosure allegations, while delayed securities enforcement also failed.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102731</link>
    <description>Statutory associate-company criteria governed whether the group company required consolidation and related-party disclosures. The Tribunal majority found no prescribed voting threshold, agreement, control, or participation in business decisions; accounting standards could supplement but not override the statutory definition. Consolidation and related-party disclosure contraventions therefore failed. The majority also found the real-estate bulk-sale memoranda and underlying projects genuine, with no proof that common personnel, funding arrangements, accounting differences, or weak finances established a sham scheme, market impact, unlawful gain, or PFUTP violation. Securities-enforcement proceedings were further initiated after inordinate, unexplained delay following completed transactions. The appeals succeeded, penalties were set aside and refundable; the Presiding Officer dissented.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:54:58 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:54:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=917349" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Statutory associate-company test defeated consolidation and related-party disclosure allegations, while delayed securities enforcement also failed.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102731</link>
      <description>Statutory associate-company criteria governed whether the group company required consolidation and related-party disclosures. The Tribunal majority found no prescribed voting threshold, agreement, control, or participation in business decisions; accounting standards could supplement but not override the statutory definition. Consolidation and related-party disclosure contraventions therefore failed. The majority also found the real-estate bulk-sale memoranda and underlying projects genuine, with no proof that common personnel, funding arrangements, accounting differences, or weak finances established a sham scheme, market impact, unlawful gain, or PFUTP violation. Securities-enforcement proceedings were further initiated after inordinate, unexplained delay following completed transactions. The appeals succeeded, penalties were set aside and refundable; the Presiding Officer dissented.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 11:54:58 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102731</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>