Opportunity to furnish unsecured-loan confirmations is required before reassessment initiation; proceedings require fresh consideration after taxpayer...
Under-reporting on a first reassessment return attracts penalty, while enhanced misreporting penalty requires proof of a statutory misreporting catego...
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 The AT determined that the company had an obligation to authenticate and promptly disclose unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI), even if media speculation existed.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.
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 The AT determined that the company had an obligation to authenticate and promptly disclose unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI), even if media speculation existed.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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4915 
