Corporate Laws Daily
Dear Reader,
Welcome to Taxmann.com | Newsletter – Reporting the Facts with Taxmann's Analysis. Today's Edition Brings You Updates on Company & SEBI Laws | FEMA Banking & NBFCs | Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) | Competition Laws.
IFSCA mandates registration on FIU-IND Portal to ensure compliance with Anti-Money Laundering and KYC Guidelines
IFSCA has mandated Regulated Entities (REs) to ensure that the registration of the FIU-IND portal is completed prior to the commencement of business. In case of urgency to commence business, the registration must be completed within 30 days from the date of commencement of business. Further, REs must ensure that any additions or modifications to their Line of Business are updated on the FIU-IND portal within a period of 30 days from the date of commencement of additional line of business.
IFSCA amends Aircraft Lease framework; restricts IFSC Lessors from leasing solely to Indian residents
IFSCA amends the Aircraft Lease framework, restricting IFSC Lessors from acquiring assets that will be solely used by Indian residents. However, exceptions apply where assets are acquired from non-group entities, through sale-leaseback arrangements for first-time imports, or directly from Indian manufacturers. These amendments will take effect immediately.
IFSCA clarifies on interest calculation on late fee payments for entities undertaking permissible activities in IFSC
Presently, in the event of failure to pay outstanding dues/fees to the Authority, 20% of outstanding fee or outstanding dues payable, plus 15% interest per month till the time the fee/dues remain outstanding after due date is required to be paid in addition to the originally applicable fee. Now, IFSCA has clarified that the 15% simple interest per month is required to be paid on the late fee only, i.e. on the 20% of outstanding fee or outstanding dues payable.
CCI notifies ‘Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty’ Regulations, 2025
The CCI has notified the ‘Manner of Recovery of Monetary Penalty’ Regulations, 2025. These regulations aim to specify the manner for recovery of monetary penalty. The Regulations prescribe norms relating to the issuance of demand notices for payment of penalty, extension of time for payment of penalty, and interest on penalty. Further, the Regulations outline the functions of Recovery Officer, modes of recovery, maintenance of penalty recovery register and the process for refund of penalty.
SEBI rightly barred appellant from securities market for a year & imposed a penalty for trading in Biocon scrip using UPSI: SAT
In the instant case, Biocon was a prominent biopharmaceutical company engaged in research and manufacturing of pharma ingredients. SEBI noted that Biocon had made an announcement regarding its exclusive global collaboration with Sandoz on next-generation bio-similars.
Observing that certain persons had traded in scrip of Biocon while in possession of the said UPSI, SEBI carried out an investigation for violation of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.
Consequently, common show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the grounds that the appellant was in frequent communication with the officers of company (including the CEO and CFO).
SEBI held the appellant as a 'connected person' under regulation 2(1)(d)(i) and thereby held him as an 'insider' within the meaning of regulation 2(1)(g)(i) of the SEBI (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 2015.
SEBI also noted that within just four days before completion of UPSI period, the appellant purchased 4,000 shares of Biocon. SEBI directed the appellant to disgorge notional profit earned by the appellant and also levied penalty.
SAT observed that appellant No. 1 was closely associated with key managerial persons of Biocon and was also working in an advisory capacity with Biocon on another deal. Further, there was a spike in trading of Biocon shares within four days of the UPSI period, and trades were made based on knowledge of UPSI, which would suggest that such trades were made based on knowledge of UPSI.
SAT held that there was no error in the finding recorded by the SEBI that there was a strong ‘preponderance of probability’ that trades executed by the appellants in Biocon during the UPSI period, were guided by the UPSI on account of the appellant being ‘insiders’, and therefore, the appellant had violated the SEBI Act and PIT regulations.
Thus, SEBI had rightly restrained the appellant from accessing the securities market for a period of one years and imposed penalty upon him.
That's it from us for today!
We're keen on enhancing Your Taxmann.com | Newsletter Experience and would greatly value your input. Your feedback is pivotal in guiding our improvements. Could you spare a few moments to share your thoughts in the comments on how we might better serve your needs?
??????????????.?????? | ????????????????—Where Technology Powers Your Legal Research Needs
Access the ?????????????? ???????????????? ???? ???????? ????????, ????????????-?????????????? ????????????????, and a ?????????????????????? ???????????? ???????????? to find exactly what you need, when you need it.
Experience State-of-the-Art Tax & Corporate Law Research! https://taxmann.social/dpSGE