“price rigging”

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

discussed the findings of the Investigation wing in various paras of the assessment order which discusses the modus operandi involving multiple players indulging in price rigging of penny stock by way of off market or preferential allotments with a holding period of one year and ultimately resulting in long term ... analysis of transactions of above penny stock is narrated in the assessment orders as to how these companies with no net worth got their prices rigged. Moreover, certain operators in their deposed statements admitted of having bought similar bogus long term capital gains on payment of certain percentage of commission

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

discussed the findings of the Investigation wing in various paras of the assessment order which discusses the modus operandi involving multiple players indulging in price rigging of penny stock by way of off market or preferential allotments with a holding period of one year and ultimately resulting in long term ... analysis of transactions of above penny stock is narrated in the assessment orders as to how these companies with no net worth got their prices rigged. Moreover, certain operators in their deposed statements admitted of having bought similar bogus long term capital gains on payment of certain percentage of commission

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

discussed the findings of the Investigation wing in various paras of the assessment order which discusses the modus operandi involving multiple players indulging in price rigging of penny stock by way of off market or preferential allotments with a holding period of one year and ultimately resulting in long term ... analysis of transactions of above penny stock is narrated in the assessment orders as to how these companies with no net worth got their prices rigged. Moreover, certain operators in their deposed statements admitted of having bought similar bogus long term capital gains on payment of certain percentage of commission

Mr Pankaj Goshar, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

unaccounted income into exempt long term capital gains by conniving with the so called entry operators and brokers who were involved in artificial price rigging of shares. No evidence is brought on record to prove that assessee was directly involved in price manipulation of the shares dealt ... case of Pine Animation Ltd clearly acquitting 114 persons which admittedly included the assessee on the plea that they were not involved in artificial price rigging of shares. In the said order, SEBI had listed out the names and PAN of various persons who were involved in artificial price rigging

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

unaccounted income into exempt long term capital gains by conniving with the so called entry operators and brokers who were involved in artificial price rigging of shares. No evidence is brought on record to prove that assessee was directly involved in price manipulation of the shares dealt ... case of Pine Animation Ltd clearly acquitting 114 persons which admittedly included the assessee on the plea that they were not involved in artificial price rigging of shares. In the said order, SEBI had listed out the names and PAN of various persons who were involved in artificial price rigging

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Pankaj Dhanji Goshar, Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

unaccounted income into exempt long term capital gains by conniving with the so called entry operators and brokers who were involved in artificial price rigging of shares. No evidence is brought on record to prove that assessee was directly involved in price manipulation of the shares dealt ... case of Pine Animation Ltd clearly acquitting 114 persons which admittedly included the assessee on the plea that they were not involved in artificial price rigging of shares. In the said order, SEBI had listed out the names and PAN of various persons who were involved in artificial price rigging

Preeti Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 28(2)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

genuineness of the transactions were not doubted. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee is only an investor and was not involved in the price rigging of shares and no enquiry was conducted by the SEBI and BSE against the assessee. The Ld. AR relied on the fallowing judicial decisions ... 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

Manjula H. Vira, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 Manjula H. Vira, Acit-27(2), 1201, Kailash Palace, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Upashray Lane, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Ghatkopar (East), Vashi, Mumbai. Navi Mumbai. Pan : Anips5867Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, For Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2024 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M : The Assesseee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 04-08-2023 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-Nfac, Delhi & It Relates To The Assessment Year (Ay.) 2015-16. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3.28 Crores Relating To Sale Prices Of Shares Added By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟) & Also The Addition Of Rs.9,83,123/- Relating To Estimated Commission Expenses Made U/S 69C Of The Act.

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 ... cases cited above shall apply to the present case, since 12 the AO has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging and further the AO did not find fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee. 14. Accordingly, we hold that the long term capital

Mahaveer Ranka HUF, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Films Industry Ltd. is also a party against whom the monetary penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- has been levied by considering the allegations of price rigging of shares by some other persons for the period from 15.06.2009 to 02.07.2009. Admittedly there are no allegations have been leveled and even ... sale and purchase of shares however, not criticized the same and there was no allegation against the Assessee that he has participated in any price rigging of the scrips involved. For ready reference, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced herein below: “JUDGEMENT 1. The following question

Mahaveerkumar Kanwarlal Ranka, Mumbai vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax-28(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

Films Industry Ltd. is also a party against whom the monetary penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- has been levied by considering the allegations of price rigging of shares by some other persons for the period from 15.06.2009 to 02.07.2009. Admittedly there are no allegations have been leveled and even ... sale and purchase of shares however, not criticized the same and there was no allegation against the Assessee that he has participated in any price rigging of the scrips involved. For ready reference, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced herein below: “JUDGEMENT 1. The following question

Income Tax Officer-42(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Ketan Gunvantrai Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, instant appeal and CO filed respectively by the Revenue Department and the Assessee, stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2012-13

concluding as under: “5.3. DECISION 5.3.1. The details of the transactions of the appellant in the penny stock which was part of a share price rigging is as under: - 1. Broker- Prabhudas Liladhar Pvt Ltd. BUY total quantity 247918 Sell out of Profit Balance stock sold 165085 Excel Infrastructure ... shares at lower prices booking losses so that the losses can be set off against its profits. Thus, the loss booked by share price rigging is considered by the AO as bogus loss. However, this is ridden with factual errors. 5.3.4. The AO erred on two counts (a) there

Dipika Jitesh Palrecha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2014-15 Dipika Jitesh Palrecha, Income Tax Officer–19(1)(4), 41, 1St Floor, Piramal Chamber, Vijay Chambers, 1140, Vs. Lalbaugh, Tribhuvan Road, Mumbai. Opp: Dreamland Cinema, Mumbai Pan : Ahnpp6514G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shashank Mehta Revenue By : Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha

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 ... 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

Aakash Dilip Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2014-15 Aakash Dilip Doshi, Income Tax Officer–19(1)(1), 408/409, 4Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Jivan Vihar, Vs. Matru Mandir, Manav Mandir Road, Tardeo, Malbar Hill, Mumbai Walkeshwar, Mumbai Pan : Ailpd8283D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024

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 ... Court in the cases cited above shall apply to the present case, since the AO has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging and further the AO did not find fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee. 18. We noticed earlier that

Corteva Crop India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assessment Unit, National Facessless Assessment Center, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 4647 &

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

these facts it cannot be said that the company is controlled as a closely held co by promoters and operators. The allegation of price rigging is mere assumption, presumption, surmises and suspicious as no action is taken either by regulatory authority SEBI or TheStock Exchange for manipulation of price against ... even by stretch of imagination that the company is controlled and managed as a closely held company by promoters and operators. The allegation of price rigging is mere assumption, presumption, surmises and suspicious as no action is taken either by regulatory authority SEBI or the Stock Exchange for manipulation