Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the trial balances and related financial information available within the company constituted unpublished price sensitive information and whether the executive chairman was in possession of it; (ii) Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the executive chairman had communicated such information to the wife and brother, and that their trades were based on it; (iii) Whether non-supply of the investigation report and the alleged shift in the date of UPSI amounted to violation of natural justice.
Issue (i): Whether the trial balances and related financial information available within the company constituted unpublished price sensitive information and whether the executive chairman was in possession of it.
Analysis: The definition of price sensitive information under the insider trading regulations is wide and includes periodical financial results. Trial balances received from various units and under consolidation within the company were not in the public domain and related directly to the financial performance of the company. The closure of the trading window was a relevant circumstance, but the conclusion rested on the material showing that the financial information had reached the company and was known to the executive chairman before final disclosure.
Conclusion: The information constituted unpublished price sensitive information and the executive chairman was in possession of it.
Issue (ii): Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that the executive chairman had communicated such information to the wife and brother, and that their trades were based on it.
Analysis: A charge of insider trading requires proof, on a higher degree of preponderance of probabilities, that the trades were motivated by the unpublished price sensitive information. The record did not contain direct or circumstantial evidence showing communication of the information to the other two appellants or showing that their purchases were based on it. Their trading pattern and the small quantities purchased were treated as inconsistent with the alleged misuse of insider information.
Conclusion: The communication of unpublished price sensitive information and the alleged insider-trading basis for their trades were not proved.
Issue (iii): Whether non-supply of the investigation report and the alleged shift in the date of UPSI amounted to violation of natural justice.
Analysis: The regulations required communication of the findings of the investigation report, not the entire report, and the findings were supplied. The later finding on the date from which UPSI existed was based on the record and did not amount to making out a new case. No procedural prejudice was shown.
Conclusion: No violation of natural justice was made out.
Final Conclusion: The penalty order could not be sustained against any of the appellants, and the appeals succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: For insider-trading liability, the price-sensitive information must be shown to be unpublished and in the insider's possession, and the burden remains to establish, on cogent material, that the impugned trades were actually made on the basis of that information; absent such proof, penalty cannot be sustained.