Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
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 
