https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88476 AT held that appellants were not 'insiders' under SEBI (PIT) Regulations. The tribunal found no evidence proving appellants' access to unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) or trading based on such information. The preponderance of probabilities suggested their trading was consistent with a long-term investment strategy, considering potential positive developments in the company. Consequently, the tribunal negated SEBI's allegations of insider trading, determining that the regulatory burden of proving UPSI access rested with SEBI, which failed to substantiate its claims against the appellants. en-us Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:12 +0530 Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88476 AT held that appellants were not 'insiders' under SEBI (PIT) Regulations. The tribunal found no evidence proving appellants' access to unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) or trading based on such information. The preponderance of probabilities suggested their trading was consistent with a long-term investment strategy, considering potential positive developments in the company. Consequently, the tribunal negated SEBI's allegations of insider trading, determining that the regulatory burden of proving UPSI access rested with SEBI, which failed to substantiate its claims against the appellants. Highlights SEBI Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=88476