TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h K. Mavoa Jacob and Ms. Priyanka Singh, Advocates For the Respondent :Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Deepti Mohan, Mr. Niket Dalal, Ms. Hubab Sayeed and Ms. Purvi Jain, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners, Mr. Vishal Kanade, Advocate with Ms. Nidhi Singh, Ms. Deepti Mohan, Mr. Niket Dalal, Ms. Hubab Sayeed and Ms. Purvi Jain, Advocates i/b Vidhii Partners for Respondent No. 1., Mr. Pesi Modi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kalpana Deswai, Mr. Mr. Joby Mathew, Ms. Nitiksha Parmar and Ms. Tanya Gupta, Advocates i/b Joby Mathew & Associates for Respondent No. 2 ORDER Per: Justice Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer 1. Two appeals have been filed against a common order dated July 21, 2020 passed by the Whole Time Member ("....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g themselves registered under the IA Regulations. The WTM further found that monies' that was being received into their personal accounts was not been disputed and accordingly necessary directions for refund and for debarment was issued. 4. We have heard Shri Pesi Modi, the leaned senior counsel and Shri T. Tamil Selvi, the learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Vishal Kanade, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and Shri Pesi Modi, the learned senior counsel for respondent no. 2. 5. It may be stated here, that noticees no. 2 and 3, namely, Ubaidur Rahman and G. Kadar Hussain were brothers. Ubaidur Rahman, noticee no. 2 died on June 16, 2020 after filing his reply. No appeal has been filed by the legal representatives of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the appellant was permanently terminated on June 26, 2016 from the email sent by noticee no. 3 and, therefore, contended that the said email would indicate that he was not a partner but an employee of noticees no. 2 and 3. 8. In so far as noticee no. 3 G. Kadar Hussain is concerned, the appellant contended that he and his brother were illiterate and had no knowledge of stocks and shares and providing tips. The appellant contended that he was an employee of noticee no. 1 Rishabh Jain. The appellant contended that noticee no. 1 was the real mastermind and that he was only an employee. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that appellants were beneficiaries through PayUmoney from 13 websites which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was being withdrawn by noticees no. 2 and 3 from Madurai on the basis of blank signed cheques and ATM card which he had sent from Delhi. It was thus contended, that noticees no. 2 and 3 were the actual recipients of the subscription amount and, therefore, the appellant cannot be penalized for the refund of the subscription amount. The argument appears attractive in the first blush but on a closer scrutiny we find that a specific finding has been given by the WTM that there were multiple transaction of receipts and debits between the appellant Rishabh Jain with the other two noticees which entries have not been denied and, therefore, suggest that these transactions related to the profits being shares. 13. The contention that the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovided that a person acting as an investment adviser immediately before the commencement of these regulations may continue to do so for a period of six months from such commencement or, if it has made an application for a certificate under sub-regulation(2) within the said period of six months, till the disposal of such application." 15. It was contended that the appellant can only be penalized if he is found to be providing tips which in the instant case was lacking as there is no such evidence against him. In our opinion, such contention raised by the appellant is patently erroneous. Regulation 3(1) provides that "no person shall act as an investment advisor". Regulation 2(m) defines investment advisory to mean any person who is engag....