Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The AT upheld SEBI's monetary penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs against the appellants for violating Principle 4 of Schedule A of PIT Regulations. The tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments that information about a potential Facebook investment was not concrete or required disclosure until a binding agreement was signed. The AT determined that the company had an obligation to authenticate and promptly disclose unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI), even if media speculation existed. The selective leakage of information did not absolve the company from its disclosure responsibilities. The tribunal found the appellants failed to make timely and comprehensive disclosure, thereby undermining market integrity and investor transparency.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
