https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782093 The AT allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of insider trading. It held that a mere presumption of a high probability of detection of fraud on retirement of a bank official could not constitute UPSI under the PIT Regulations. The appellant's limited business relationship and minority shareholding in the listed company did not make the appellant a "connected person," nor was there evidence of any communication of UPSI from the key wrongdoer. On a preponderance of probabilities, the AT found that the appellant's trades were consistent with market movements and other investors' behavior, and not guided by UPSI, thus negating any violation of SEBI Act or PIT Regulations. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Nov 2025 15:11:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782093 The AT allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of insider trading. It held that a mere presumption of a high probability of detection of fraud on retirement of a bank official could not constitute UPSI under the PIT Regulations. The appellant's limited business relationship and minority shareholding in the listed company did not make the appellant a "connected person," nor was there evidence of any communication of UPSI from the key wrongdoer. On a preponderance of probabilities, the AT found that the appellant's trades were consistent with market movements and other investors' behavior, and not guided by UPSI, thus negating any violation of SEBI Act or PIT Regulations. Case-Laws SEBI Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782093