Statutory transfer formalities invalidated alleged share and property transfers, while retrospective record manipulation constituted oppression and mi...
Provisional attachment of laundered funds and equivalent-value property sustained, with statutory protection limited to pension, gratuity and providen...
Insolvency moratorium does not shield company officers from cheque dishonour prosecution for liability arising before corporate insolvency proceedings...
Advance-ruling mechanism governs pending GST classification, exemption and taxability disputes, limiting writ review once the specialised forum functi...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 96092 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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
