https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307925 AT held appellants were improperly singled out for PFUTP violations: there was no direct connection, collusion or price-manipulation link between the appellants and the company, its promoters or the principal manipulator (noticee no. 9), so culpability against the appellants could not be sustained. The tribunal found the six entities, which acquired shares from the promoter and managed company affairs, were closely connected with the scheme and rightly held liable; the WTM order against those six entities did not suffer from manifest error. Preferential allottees were treated differently in the impugned order, and AT rejected application of the "weak fundamentals" standard to justify penalizing the appellants. en-us Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307925 AT held appellants were improperly singled out for PFUTP violations: there was no direct connection, collusion or price-manipulation link between the appellants and the company, its promoters or the principal manipulator (noticee no. 9), so culpability against the appellants could not be sustained. The tribunal found the six entities, which acquired shares from the promoter and managed company affairs, were closely connected with the scheme and rightly held liable; the WTM order against those six entities did not suffer from manifest error. Preferential allottees were treated differently in the impugned order, and AT rejected application of the "weak fundamentals" standard to justify penalizing the appellants. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307925