https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288819 A company's proposed decision to acquire shares in another listed company was treated as unpublished price sensitive information because it was not in the public domain, could materially affect the target's price, and need not have been known by the issuer of the traded securities. The appellant was found to be an insider on the basis of position, access, repeated contacts, trade timing, funding pattern, and trading through a spouse's account, with circumstantial evidence sufficient to show trading on such information. The plea that non-supply of the full investigation report breached natural justice failed because the required findings were communicated and no prejudice was shown. The penalty orders were therefore sustained. en-us Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jul 2020 09:56:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288819 A company's proposed decision to acquire shares in another listed company was treated as unpublished price sensitive information because it was not in the public domain, could materially affect the target's price, and need not have been known by the issuer of the traded securities. The appellant was found to be an insider on the basis of position, access, repeated contacts, trade timing, funding pattern, and trading through a spouse's account, with circumstantial evidence sufficient to show trading on such information. The plea that non-supply of the full investigation report breached natural justice failed because the required findings were communicated and no prejudice was shown. The penalty orders were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288819