Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
AT held that appellants were not 'insiders' under SEBI (PIT) Regulations. The tribunal found no evidence proving appellants' access to unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) or trading based on such information. The preponderance of probabilities suggested their trading was consistent with a long-term investment strategy, considering potential positive developments in the company. Consequently, the tribunal negated SEBI's allegations of insider trading, determining that the regulatory burden of proving UPSI access rested with SEBI, which failed to substantiate its claims against the appellants.
AT held that appellants were not 'insiders' under SEBI (PIT) Regulations. The tribunal found no evidence proving appellants' access to unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) or trading based on such information. The preponderance of probabilities suggested their trading was consistent with a long-term investment strategy, considering potential positive developments in the company. Consequently, the tribunal negated SEBI's allegations of insider trading, determining that the regulatory burden of proving UPSI access rested with SEBI, which failed to substantiate its claims against the appellants.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
