“price rigging”

CHHAYA KETAN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 33(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

present case, Revenue has not\nbrought on record any material about participation of the assessee with any\nsuch dubious transactions relating to accommodation entry, price rigging or\nexit providers. To our mind, Ld. AO could have taken an adverse view only if\nhe could point out the discrepancies or insufficiency ... consideration of the impugned transaction\ncannot be sustained. In our considered view, ld. Assessing Officer has not\nestablished that the assessee was involved in price rigging.\n8. We note that ld. Assessing Officer has observed about the so-called\npurchasers of shares sold by the assessee who have not been

ELARA INDIA OPPORTUNITIES FUND LIMITED,MAURITIUS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

that there is no\ninvestigation report/investigation which relates to the\nscrip of International Conveyors Limited or names the said\nscrip as one in which price rigging/ manipulation was\ncarried out. There is no statement of any person which\nnames International Conveyors Limited' as a scrip in\nwhich price rigging/ manipulation ... nalleged price rigging/manipulation\n3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned DCIT failed\nto appreciate that the Appellant was not party to the\nalleged price rigging/ manipulation and the Appellant sold\nthe shares of International Conveyors Limited in the usual\nand ordinary course of its operations as a Foreign Portfolio

JAYSHREE HARESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 19(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

npurchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against\nassessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL.\n3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal.\"\n4. Mr. Walve placed ... evidence even\nworth a name that assessee's own money has been routed back to him. There is no nexus with\nthe assessee with price rigging and no adverse observation from stock exchange. The addition\nsimply on third party statement is uncalled for. We respectfully relied on the order

ITO 13(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SKA SALES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

papers, dairies, etc. were found and seized. Information was received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing that Kushal Group was involved in price rigging and providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/Loss and STCG/Loss. According to the Assessing Officer, was one of the beneficiaries

SKA SALES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICSR, WARD 13(2)(1), MUMBAI

papers, dairies, etc. were found and seized. Information\nwas received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing\nthat Kushal Group was involved in price rigging and providing bogus\naccommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG/Loss and\nSTCG/Loss. According to the Assessing Officer, was one of the\nbeneficiaries

INCOME TAX OFFICER-16(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TEJPRAKASH SOHAN LAL DANGI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

framed any adverse charges against the assessee and had\nnot passed any contrary order against the assessee and accordingly, the\nassessee's involvement in price rigging in collusion with operators and\nexit providers is not established. However, ld. Assessing Officer\nconcluded that assessee failed to show that he was having ... ordinary investor in\nshares and it was not shown that the assessee was a part of the group, which\nwas involved in the alleged prices rigging of the shares. Accordingly he submitted\nthat the tax authorities are not justified in disbelieving the transactions of shares\ncarried on by the assessee

RAJ SHARADKUMAR AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

forces and cannot be a ground to treat the gain as non-genuine in the absence of cogent evidence linking the assessee to any price rigging activity. The assessee has neither controlled the company nor influenced market price. 7. The revenue has also relied on notices issued under section

RASILA LALITKUMAR CHOLERA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

prices of the shares. It was also argued that none of the statements recorded from third parties alleged the involvement of the assessee in price rigging. The Ld.CIT(A), however, confirmed the additions made by the Ld. AO by observing as under:- “5.1.3 On perusal of the assessment order

RAJENDRA P SHAH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by assessee

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Rajendra P. Shah, Ito, Ward-24(3)(5), Mumbai 402, Anand Enclave Chs, Tps 3, 11Th Vs Kautilya Bhawan, Mumbai, Road, Santacruz (East), Maharashtra – 400051. Mumbai – 400055. [Pan No. Aydps7704A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

assessee submits that he has furnished complete details of transaction. There was no allegation against the brokers of assessee about price rigging about such shares. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that there is categorical finding of lower authorities that assessee

DILIP BHANWERLAL DANGI (HUF),PALGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-26(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

assessee or that of the broker through whom the transactions were carried out appears in the list of beneficiaries alleged to be involved in price rigging of shares of Radford Global Ltd. Further, there is no allegation by SEBI regarding any involvement of the assessee or his broker in manipulation

DCIT - 19(1), MUMBAI, LALBAUGH vs. BHARAT RAMJI BHAI MANEK, GRANT ROAD MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

investment intent, rendering the LTCG bogus. Rebuttal to CIT(A): The CIT(A) failed to consider the holistic evidence, including SEBI's confirmation of price rigging and the Investigation Wing's report on accommodation entries. Accepting documentation without probing intent overlooks the artificial structure, as the transaction was executed solely ... Penny Stock" Modus Operandi: The CIT(A) failed to consider the holistic picture painted by the Investigation Wing. The detailed modus operandi-preferential allotment, price rigging through circular trading, use of exit providers, and statements of entry operators like Shri Raj Kumar Kedia and Shri Anil Agarwal establishes

ACIT19(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. YOGESHKUMAR PRAVINKUMAR SHAH, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

assessment order did not record anything that links the assessee to the exit providers or entry operators or the assessee's involvement in price rigging. It is also relevant to notice that the assessee during the year under consideration has sold other shares and from the details of investments submitted

DCIT (CC)-8(4), MUMBAI vs. REENA RATNESH JAIN , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit(Cc)-8(4) Reena Ratnesh Jain Room No. 659, 6Th Floor, 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Nirmal Nagar, Near D-Mart, Mumbai-400 020 Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No. Aeapj 6605 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Bhadresh Doshi Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Department, Against Order Dated 26.03.2025 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai (‘Ld.Cit(A) For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17. 2. Though, The Department Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Dispute In Short Is In Relation To Deletion Of Addition Made Of Rs.80,23,019/-, Being Bogus Long Term Capital Gain (‘Ltcg’ For Short) Added U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) & Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.80,230/-, Being Commission Paid By The Assessee For Arranging The Accommodation Entry Of Bogus Ltcg.

present case, Revenue has not brought on record any material about participation of the assessee with any such dubious transactions relating to accommodation entry, price rigging or exit providers. To our mind, Ld. AO could have taken an adverse view only if he could point out the discrepancies or insufficiency ... consideration of the impugned transaction cannot be sustained. In our considered view, ld. Assessing Officer has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging. 8.1 For our observations and to arrive at the findings, we find force of binding nature from the decisions of Hon'ble High Court