“price rigging”

Bao Value Fund, Mumbai vs. ACIT, International Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) without any cogent material or evidence on record that substantiates that the appellant was involved in price manipulation or price rigging of equity shares of Kushal Ltd. The appellant prays that initiation of assessment proceedings without any cogent material on record should be treated ... scrip is allegedly is a penny stock. It is a settled position that unless the assessee is connected with the synchronized operation of price rigging no addition can be made under section 68 merely for the reason that the assessee as a regular investor has transacted in the impugned shares

Mukesh Shah, HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward -17(2)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shriamarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Bank Statement reflecting receipts from sale proceeds 20-22 5. The Ld.AR further stated that the assessee has not at all been involved in price rigging and the documents, which are duly filed by the assessee before the revenue authorities has never been rejected. On the other hand, he also ... ordinary investor in shares and it was not shown that the assessee was a part of the group, which was involved in the alleged prices rigging of the shares. Accordingly, he submitted that the tax authorities are not justified in disbelieving the transactions of shares carried on by the assessee

Meena Hasmukh Savla, Matunga Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL" 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 5. In our view ... purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL." 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 5. In our view

DCIT 19(1), Mumbai vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

perversity in the order of this Tribunal. The Court further noted that there was no allegation against the assessee that he had participated in price rigging in the market and therefore dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court which is binding upon ... purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed

Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-30(1)(2), Now ITO Ward-41(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarchintan Shailesh Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 30(1)(2) Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar, (Now Ward 41(3)(1)) Adarsh Dugdhalaya Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Malad (W), Mumbai – Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400064. 400051. Pan/Gir No. Amzps2768Q (Applicant) (Respondent)

difficult to get direct information or evidence with regard to the prior meeting of minds of the persons involved in the manipulative activities of price rigging and insider trading. We can draw a parallel in cases of adulteration of food stuff, more than often action is initiated under the relevant

Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2016-17 Nitin Shantilal Solanki, Income Tax Officer, 4Th Floor, Ward-27(2)(1), Veer Vijay Apartment, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Building, M.G. Road, Ghatkoper West, 3Rd & 4Th Floor, Mumbai 6Th Tower, Complex, Pan: Aqbps3462P Navi Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

furnished by the assessee. He submitted that the assessee was not shown be part of the group, which was involved in the alleged prices rigging of the shares. Accordingly he submitted that the tax authorities are not justified in disbelieving the transactions of shares carried on by the assessee ... shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against the assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed reliance

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan vs. Kumarpal Mahendrakumar Shah, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2012-13

shares of M/s. Vas Infrastructure Ltd. and the AO has not brought on record any finding that the Assessee was engaged in the price rigging of said scrips on software driven portal and therefore the addition made by the AO for a sum of Rs.1,19,359/- on account

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Shailesh A Jhaveri (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

shares off- market as all the transactions have been done online. The payments have been made through banking channels. 8. In our considered opinion price rigging is done to rig the benefit by purchasing the shares at a meagre price and selling them at a very exorbitant and high price

Sejal Jignesh Shah, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed

Welspun Mercantile Ltd.(Now Merged With M/S. Mgn Agro Properties Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 8 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed

DCIT, CC- 3 (3), Mumbai vs. Welspun Mercantile Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no

Bench: Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Ble

purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed

Sirona Dental Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA ( (Accountant Member)

Gupta (HUF) (2024), the Court upheld addition w/s 68 for penny stock LTCG, denying exemption u/s 10(38) despite exchange transactions, as evidence showed price rigging. 8 Assessment Year 2011-2012 Learned CIT(A) had rightly ignored the ‘on-floor’ claim, as the overall scheme was sham. (e) The Assessee

Tejash Ramesh Shah, HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (3) - 1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss Padmavathy S.

assessee related to the same scrip& allowed the exemption claimed U/s 10(38) of the Act. We find no evidence of any irregularities or price rigging concerning the scrip MPL. We find no basis to conclude that the assessee was involved in any price rigging or circulation of black money