Electronic WhatsApp evidence without authentication or independent corroboration cannot sustain an unexplained-investment addition based on third-part...
Mutual current-account transactions excluded from deemed dividend treatment where no fresh borrowing arose; unsupported unsecured-loan addition also f...
The AT, on appeal from an adjudication alleging front-running under Section 12(A)(c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), 3(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(q) of the PFUTP Regulations, concluded that the charge was not established on the preponderance of probabilities and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that an external forensic report obtained during the investigation implicated connections between the complainant and a third party and that the adjudicating officer's failure to address that report warranted an adverse inference against the regulator. Absent satisfactory treatment of that material, the appellant's alleged advance trading could not be proved and the penalty was set aside.
The AT, on appeal from an adjudication alleging front-running under Section 12(A)(c) of the SEBI Act and Regulations 3(a), 3(d), 4(1) and 4(2)(q) of the PFUTP Regulations, concluded that the charge was not established on the preponderance of probabilities and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal found that an external forensic report obtained during the investigation implicated connections between the complainant and a third party and that the adjudicating officer's failure to address that report warranted an adverse inference against the regulator. Absent satisfactory treatment of that material, the appellant's alleged advance trading could not be proved and the penalty was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
