<?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>2011 (2) TMI 1577 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288223</link>
    <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai upheld the guilty verdict against a trader for engaging in circular trading in two scrips listed on BSE and NSE. The appellant&#039;s claim of not being part of the trading group was rejected, with the Tribunal confirming the circular trades and violation of regulation 4. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments of being misled, the Tribunal found the appellant guilty of unfair trade practices. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 1.5 lacs due to the appellant&#039;s limited trading period and lack of profit, emphasizing this decision as unique and not setting a precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 May 2020 18:31:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613729" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 1577 - SECURITIES APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288223</link>
      <description>The Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai upheld the guilty verdict against a trader for engaging in circular trading in two scrips listed on BSE and NSE. The appellant&#039;s claim of not being part of the trading group was rejected, with the Tribunal confirming the circular trades and violation of regulation 4. Despite the appellant&#039;s arguments of being misled, the Tribunal found the appellant guilty of unfair trade practices. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 1.5 lacs due to the appellant&#039;s limited trading period and lack of profit, emphasizing this decision as unique and not setting a precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288223</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>