Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
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 
