<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (10) TMI 1187 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277511</link>
    <description>Screen-based futures and options trading is not treated as fraudulent or manipulative merely because trades are synchronized, quickly reversed, or produce offsetting profits and losses. The commentary explains that reverse F&amp;O transactions may have legitimate commercial or tax-planning purposes, and that manipulation requires material showing a deceptive device or misuse of the exchange mechanism. Broker liability for aiding and abetting or breach of code of conduct depends on evidence of knowledge of the counter-party arrangement or participation in the alleged scheme; a mere broker-client relationship, especially in anonymous and internet-based trading, is insufficient without proof of collusion or lack of due diligence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2018 11:32:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1187 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277511</link>
      <description>Screen-based futures and options trading is not treated as fraudulent or manipulative merely because trades are synchronized, quickly reversed, or produce offsetting profits and losses. The commentary explains that reverse F&amp;O transactions may have legitimate commercial or tax-planning purposes, and that manipulation requires material showing a deceptive device or misuse of the exchange mechanism. Broker liability for aiding and abetting or breach of code of conduct depends on evidence of knowledge of the counter-party arrangement or participation in the alleged scheme; a mere broker-client relationship, especially in anonymous and internet-based trading, is insufficient without proof of collusion or lack of due diligence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277511</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>