Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Page of 4801
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
341 to 360 of 96001 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
AT set aside SEBI's order holding the appellant guilty of insider trading in the shares of GGL. It held that the alleged "high probability of detection of fraud" on retirement of a PNB officer did not constitute UPSI under the PIT Regulations, as mere probability of future detection is neither concrete nor credible information. AT further held that the appellant's limited business dealings and minority shareholding did not render him a "connected person" or "insider", there being no reasonable expectation of access to UPSI and no evidence of communication of UPSI from Noticee No.1. Trading was found consistent with market behaviour and price movements, not guided by UPSI. Consequently, allegations of violation of Sections 12A(d), 12A(e) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations failed and the appeal was allowed.
AT set aside SEBI's order holding the appellant guilty of insider trading in the shares of GGL. It held that the alleged "high probability of detection of fraud" on retirement of a PNB officer did not constitute UPSI under the PIT Regulations, as mere probability of future detection is neither concrete nor credible information. AT further held that the appellant's limited business dealings and minority shareholding did not render him a "connected person" or "insider", there being no reasonable expectation of access to UPSI and no evidence of communication of UPSI from Noticee No.1. Trading was found consistent with market behaviour and price movements, not guided by UPSI. Consequently, allegations of violation of Sections 12A(d), 12A(e) of the SEBI Act and Regulation 4(1) of the PIT Regulations failed and the appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
