https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770877 SAT Mumbai upheld SEBI's Rs. 30 lakh penalty against appellants for violating Principle 4 of PIT Regulations Schedule A. The tribunal rejected appellants' argument that information becomes concrete only after signing binding agreements, stating this would defeat PIT regulations' purpose. SAT held that selective media leakage doesn't discharge companies from prompt disclosure obligations, as leaked information remains unauthenticated until company confirms it. Despite 15% price rise from speculative reporting, formal disclosure later caused additional 10% spike, proving information wasn't "generally available" until company authenticated it. The tribunal found appellants failed to exercise due care regarding unpublished price sensitive information disclosure. en-us Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 15:25:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770877 SAT Mumbai upheld SEBI's Rs. 30 lakh penalty against appellants for violating Principle 4 of PIT Regulations Schedule A. The tribunal rejected appellants' argument that information becomes concrete only after signing binding agreements, stating this would defeat PIT regulations' purpose. SAT held that selective media leakage doesn't discharge companies from prompt disclosure obligations, as leaked information remains unauthenticated until company confirms it. Despite 15% price rise from speculative reporting, formal disclosure later caused additional 10% spike, proving information wasn't "generally available" until company authenticated it. The tribunal found appellants failed to exercise due care regarding unpublished price sensitive information disclosure. Case-Laws SEBI Fri, 02 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770877