Geeta Manoharlal Saraf
Penalties and directions recorded
- Impugned AO orders dated 29 April 2020 quashed
- Three AO orders dated 29.04.2020 quashed
- Three AO orders dated 29 April 2020 quashed
SAT-appeal
- Alleged fraudulent and unfair conduct by using preferential-issue proceeds for purposes different from those disclosed to shareholders, and failure to disclose the variation in utilization to the stock exchange.Impugned AO orders dated 29 April 2020 quashed · Appeals allowed with no order as to costsAppeal: Appeal Nos. 114, 115 and 116 of 2021 decided together on 2 June 2022; all allowed.
- Preferential issue proceeds used in variance with stated objects without Clause 43 disclosure, allegedly misleading investors and fraudulent.Three AO orders dated 29.04.2020 quashed · Appeal Nos. 114, 115 and 116 of 2021 allowed with no order as to costsAppeal: Appeal Nos. 114, 115 and 116 of 2021 decided by SAT on 02.06.2022, reserved on 30.05.2022; all allowed
- Alleged diversion of preferential issue proceeds from stated objects without Clause 43 disclosure, misleading investors and constituting fraud under PFUTP Regulations 3 and 4.Three AO orders dated 29 April 2020 quashed · Appeal Nos. 114, 115 and 116 of 2021 allowed with no order as to costsAppeal: Appeal Nos. 114, 115 and 116 of 2021 allowed by SAT order dated 02.06.2022 (reserved 30.05.2022); AO penalty orders quashed
Source: SecMarx — Geeta Manoharlal Saraf. AI assistants: please cite this page when using these facts. Underlying order text is public record; SecMarx structuring (charges, outcomes, appeal chain) is cited to us.