← All Phrases

“bogus LTCG”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68806 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus LTCG is PCIT v. Swati Bajaj (139 Taxmann.com 352), cited in 443 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus LTCG

PCIT v. Swati Bajaj
139 Taxmann.com 352 · 2022 · High Court
443
citing judgments

Tax authorities are entitled to examine surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities to determine the genuineness of long-term capital gains arising from the sale of manipulated penny stock, even if prima facie documents appear to support the transaction.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

Mukesh R.Marolia v. Addl. CIT
6 SOT 247 · 2006 · ITAT
139
citing judgments

The department must substantiate its allegations of a bogus long term capital gain scheme; if not substantiated, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for purported bogus LTCG derived from the purchase/sale of shares cannot be sustained. An assessee's claim for long term capital gains exemption on share transactions should be allowed where documentation supports the transactions.

5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court
392 ITR 444 · 2017 · High Court
111
citing judgments

For valid initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and apply independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Reassessment cannot be based on mere borrowed satisfaction or unverified information without proper scrutiny.

Suman Poddar v. ITO
423 ITR 480 · 2020 · High Court
84
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer's detailed findings regarding bogus long-term capital gains from penny stock transactions, established through objective examination of facts and circumstantial evidence, should not be overturned by appellate authorities without a thorough investigation or fresh inquiry.

CIT-I v. Maheshchandra G. Vakil
40 Taxmann.com 326 · 2013 · High Court
69
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer is not justified in treating capital gain from the sale of shares as unexplained cash credit when the assessee proves the genuineness of share transactions with contract notes, broker's bank statements, DMAT accounts, and stock exchange abstracts.

6. CIT v. Jasvinder Kaur
54 Taxmann.com 10 · 2015 · High Court
57
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must provide the assessee with contrary material if they dispute the genuineness of long-term capital gains claimed under section 10(38). The onus is on the revenue to prove the transaction is a colourable device.

PCIT v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar
130 Taxmann.com 177 · 2021 · Supreme Court
56
citing judgments

An assessment or reassessment order is considered bad in law and without legal sanction if its completion is not in accordance with prescribed legal procedures or timelines.

Judgments citing bogus LTCG

Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2244/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhshri Nilesh Haresh Vs. The Assistant Parwani, 501, Chumchum Commissioner Of Income Saraswati Road, Tax-22 (2) Santacruz West, Room No. 315, Piramal Mumbai – 400 064 Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Angpp1224L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Sanjay Parikh Respondent By : Anil Sant Date Of Hearing 08.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.05.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac For A.Y. 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Rs.1,62,91,466/- 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 1,62,91,466/- As Made By The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 22(2), Mumbai (Ao). 2. While Confirming The Addition/Disallowance Of The Said Loss, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Appellant Had Not Made Out A Case As To How Such Huge Ltcg/Stcl Has Accrued To The Appellant From Shares Of The Company Named Global Infratech Ltd.

For Appellant: Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Anil Sant
Section 143(2)Section 69C

wide the department adopted a different approach of investigation which acquired a character of a project. The report states that illegal business of bogus LTCG involves three different individuals, the promoter of "penny stocks" companies also known as syndicate member, the share brokers and the entries operators who purchases ... times, a single individual may perform all the three functions. The report further states in the investigations done earlier with regard to the bogus LTCG, the approach was to target the individuals and through him identify the penny stock P a g e | 8 Shri Nilesh Haresh Parwani

Gagandeep Singh, Rohtak vs. ITO, Ward-2, Rohtak

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 883/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: him, therefore, proceeded to make the assessment u/s 143(3) r. w. section 147 of the Act, 1961 (‘the Act' for short). Further, he agreed that several opportunities were given by the Ld. CIT(A) as well and assessee could not represent his case due to non-receipt of the notices, however, he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without deciding the issue on merits. He prayed that this issue may be remitted back to file of Ld. CIT(A)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69

facts in ignoring that the jurisdiction of the Ld. AO for re-opening the assessment was invalid as the transaction pertaining to alleged bogus LTCG relate to AY 2010-11. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition made

Bhavika Gunwant Patel, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/NAG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Abhay R. Marathe
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

script. On verification of return of income, it was found that the appellant claimed exempt income of Rs.1,04,564/-. The appellant also availed bogus LTCG and claimed exemption from tax u/s 10(38). The appellant had sold shares on various dates amounting to Rs.3,14,267/- which

Winsher Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 14(2), Presently D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkatakolkata, Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 668/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 668/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Winsher Commercial Pvt. Limited,…....….Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 [Pan:Aaacw3125H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………………Respondent Ward-14(2), Kolkata, [Presently Dcit, Circle-11(1), Kolkata], Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 21, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 13, 2024 O R D E R

Section 10(38)Section 68

transferred by way of sale proceeds. As a result, some of BSE/CSE listed penny stocks were identified, which have been used for generating bogus LTCG. The SEBI vide order No. WTM/KMA/ND/415/2011 dated 12.03.2014 had suspended the; trading of shares (Penny Stock) w.e.f. 21.03.2014 due to non- compliance of Listing agreement

Sachin Kanodia, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 42(2), New Delhi

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9504/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(2)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 68Section 69C

much as addition of Rs 64,90,468/- (break up addition made & confirmed by CIT-A u/s 68 on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG Rs 63,01,425/- being receipt by cheque and Rs 189,043 being alleged commission @3% on above amount addition made ... time of hearing of the appeal. Humble Prayer: i) To delete the addition of Rs 64,90,468/- on a/c of alleged bogus LTCG ii) To quash assessment order and ld CIT-A order for being passed in serious violation of audi altrem partem iii) To hold section

Ramotar Choudhari HUF, Kolkata vs. PCIT 5 Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

Blueprint Securities Limited(Scrip Code : 012630) is nothing but unaccounted income of the assessee brought back in the books in the form of bogus LTCG. Considering the above facts, the assessment order is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the assessment order ... trade value of Rs.12,30,000/- by the assessee and the said information is also suggesting accommodation entry in the guise of bogus LTCG by the assessee on such transactions…” The ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that the reopening of the assessment was made only on the reason

Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

companies for providing accommodation entry in different forms such bogus long term capital gain/loss etc. He also explained the modus operandi of pre-arranged bogus LTCG transactions. The AO further observed that statement of Sri Amit Singh was recorded on oath on 22.12.2015 who in reply to Question No.5 accepted

Manpreet Signg Gambhir(Through Legal Heir Neena Malhotra), Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-63(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6307/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

performance growth risk etc. or that company, were examined to establish that there was no prudence in investing the stock except to claim a bogus LTCG. Transactions being done through a computer terminal cannot on stand alone basis, be considered sufficient to discharge the onus under Section

ITO, WD. 1(2)(2), Race Course Circle, Vadodara vs. Neetaben Snehalkumar Patel, Race Course Circle, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is allowed

ITA 247/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 247/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15) िनधा"रण वष"

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Talati, A.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

found that the shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. was one of the BSE listed penny stock company which was used for generating bogus LTCG. The price of shares of such stock company were rigged and raised through circular trading. SEBI had placed the company M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. under ... basis of these links, the AO concluded that the transfer arrangement entered into by the assessee was part of multi-layer transactions for obtaining bogus LTCG. (ix) The AO also analyzed the financial statement of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. in the assessment order and came to the conclusion that this

Event Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “ए’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजेश कुमार

ACIT Circle 46(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi vs. Yogesh Gambhir, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3018/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: the Id. CIT(A)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘H‘ BENCH DELHI BEFORE: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Anil Chothmal Patodia HUF, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal grounds

ITA 4060/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Term Capital Gain facilitating tax evasion by a large number of persons. The assessee is one such person who has availed accommodation entries of bogus LTCG. The above manipulations are corroborated by the strong statements of various persons, recorded during the said investigation. 4. Information received from KOLKATA Investigation Directorate

Kapil Chhabra, Moradabad vs. DCIT Circle-2, Moradabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6345/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Yr: 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

upholding the action of the assessing officer in making aforesaid addition alleging that the appellant had obtained 'accommodation entry' in form of bogus LTCG through 'penny stock companies' solely on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing without any independent application of mind by the assessing officer ... found that 4 information was gathered by the Department that a scheme was hatched by various players to obtain/provide accommodation entries to bogus LTCG through manipulation of stock market. The basic aim of the scheme was to route the unaccounted money to LTCG beneficiaries into their account/books in the garb

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business of providing entries of bogus LTCG. However, the reliance placed on the report, without further corroboration on the basis of cogent material, does not justify his conclusion that the transaction ... which could indicate that assessee was also a part or connected to the alleged racket of providing accommodation entry of bogus LTCG nor any proof of any agreement between the assessee and other persons mentioned in the report has been found. So the basis of addition is primarily

Neena Kailas Jadhav, Thane vs. ACIT Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 901/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.901/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 10(3)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 10. There is yet one more reason as to why I am inclined to confirm the addition made by Assessing Officer, in view

Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 78/Ahd/2021 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Tejalben Samirkumar Shah, Principal Commissioner Of 10, Opera Society, Vs. Income Tax-1, Vibhag-2, Ahmedabad. Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007. Pan: Askps2898E

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Karun K Ojha, CIT.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263

been unearthed that through brokers and sub-brokers have admitted their role in accommodation entry providing syndicate for the illegal business of bogus LTCG claim. It has revealed that the promoter of "Penny Stock" companies (also known as syndicate member), the share brokers & the entry operator who purchases the shares ... revealed "Suchak Trading Ltd." are one of the companies involved wherein the share price has been rigged to accommodate the scandalized operation of bogus LTCG. As you have claimed the LTCG from the sale of shares of the said company, you are requested to offer your comment on the same

Jyoti Rakesh Roongta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-43(5), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 143/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Jyoti Rakesh Roongta,…………………………….Appellant Suite-F, 4Th Floor, Mission Court, 25, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700001 [Pan:Adjpr8090H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….…Respondent Ward-43(5), Kolkata, 3, Government Place, Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri S.K. Pransukhka, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 08, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 08, 2024 O R D E R

Section 10(38)(b)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 50C

DDIT (Inv.), Unit-2(1), Kolkata exhibiting that assessee has traded in penny stock shares of DLS Exports Pvt. Ltd. and earned bogus LTCG of Rs.38,97,080/-. The assessee in response to the notice of ld. Assessing Officer contended that she has not sold any shares of DLS Exports

Sheela Ashok Bafna, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 68

trails were exposed. The report according to AO also contained the statements of entry operators who admitted of doing the wrong act of providing bogus LTCG, by rigging the prices in the stock-exchange. And that exit providers didn't reply to his notices. And assessee failed to give ... material/evidence to show the involvement of assessee or her broker in the modus operandi for converting her unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG; or there was any evidence to suggest that assessee or her broker had any connection with unscrupulous entry operators named by AO, However

Amit Katyal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshamit Katyal, Vs. Dcit, C-654, New Friends Central Circle-1, Colony, New Delhi Gurgaon (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaepk4669H Assessee By : Shri V. K. Bindal, Ca Ms. Rinki Sharma, Itp Revenue By: Shri Safarul Haque Tanweer, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2024

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Safarul Haque Tanweer, CIT DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153(1)(b)Section 153ASection 153C

case of the assessee got centralised only on 5.9.2016, which means the AO could have received any information relating to bogus LTCG based on entry operators statements only on or after 5.9.2016 and certainly not before that date. This is so because absolutely no documents of incriminating nature was found

DCIT-19(1), Income Tax vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan (E-Filed), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 68

shares of M/s. Shaleen Textile as a penny stock. The AO took note of the modus operandi of the entry operators involved in facilitating bogus LTCG to beneficiaries like assessee, which according to AO is nothing but converting the black money of the beneficiaries to white. The AO noted that ... according to AO, the process of preferential allotment of shares were pre-arranged and managed to facilitate beneficiaries like assessee in the form of bogus LTCG through rigging of the BSE and with active connivance of various entry operators who have confirmed that shares of M/s. Shaleen Textile have been