← All Phrases

“price rigging”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68473 judgments

The decision most relied on for price rigging is Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur (89 Taxmann.com 196), cited in 251 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on price rigging

Sanjay Bimalchand Jain v. PCIT-1, Nagpur
89 Taxmann.com 196 · 2018 · High Court
251
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains on share transactions is unavailable if the assessee fails to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of gains arising from dubious share transactions designed to convert unaccounted income into tax-exempt capital gains. Courts will uphold an assessment based on the Revenue's evidence of price rigging or penny stock manipulation if the assessee cannot provide cogent evidence for the abnormal rise in share value.

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.

Delhi in Suman Poddar v. Income Tax Officer 99
112 Taxmann.com 330 · 2019 · Supreme Court
138
citing judgments

Exemption under Section 10(38) is not allowable for long-term capital gains arising from bogus share transactions involving penny stocks or manipulative dealings. The Income Tax Department can establish such a case based on the preponderance of probabilities where there is no genuine financial worth.

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.

PCIT v. Smt. Renu Aggarwal
456 ITR 249 · 2023 · Supreme Court
57
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus long term capital gain from penny stocks are not sustainable if based solely on third-party statements without establishing the assessee's direct nexus to price rigging, especially when share transactions are through banking channels and held for a reasonable period.

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 176 · 2021 · High Court
54
citing judgments

This case establishes principles for evaluating the genuineness of long-term capital gains claimed under Section 10(38), particularly when allegations of bogus transactions, price rigging, or penny stock schemes arise. It clarifies the department's burden of proof in demonstrating, based on a preponderance of probability, that an assessee used a colourable device to claim exempt income.

Pratik Suryakant Shah v. ITO
77 Taxmann.com 260 · 2017 · ITAT
48
citing judgments

The exemption for long-term capital gains under Section 10(38) is deniable where gains arise from bogus penny stock transactions, if the fraudulent nature is established by the revenue through a preponderance of probability, often involving evidence of price rigging and the role of entry operators. This applies even if documentary evidence like contract notes is presented.

Judgments citing price rigging

Dinesh Prabhudas Hingoo, Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-31(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 667/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

sale and purchase of shares however, not criticized the same and there was no allegation against the Assessee that he has participated any price rigging on the scrips involved. For ready reference the decision of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced herein below: 17 ITA No.667/M/2024 & ors. Shri Dinesh ... 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 41(4)(1), Room No, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai vs. Dinesh Prabhudas Hingoo, Jogeshwari(W), Mumbai

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

ITA 1348/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Poojari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250

sale and purchase of shares however, not criticized the same and there was no allegation against the Assessee that he has participated any price rigging on the scrips involved. For ready reference the decision of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced herein below: 17 ITA No.667/M/2024 & ors. Shri Dinesh ... 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

Amit Sajjan Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1378/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalamitsajjankumargupta, Dcit-8(2)(1), 110, Ashirwad, Roomno.624, बनाम/ Ahmedabad Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Carnac Bunder, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400009. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abrpg2852N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak.Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 08/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Appeal Is Filed By The Assesse Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit (A) Nfac, Erred In Confirming Order Made U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Is Bad In Law, Ultra Vires & Without Appreciating The Facts, Submission & Evidences In The Proper Perspective, Without Providing Copies Of Material Used Against The Appellant & Without Providing Opportunity Of Cross Examination, Is Liable To Be Annulled.

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak.ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

genuineness of share transactions with the documentary evidences. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee is only a 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

ITO-28.3.1, Navi Mumbai vs. Seema Narendra Bapna, Nerul

In the result both the grounds of appeal are dismissed

ITA 1120/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm A.Y.2014-15 Ito,28.3.1, Seema Narendra Bapna, Mumbai Flat No.A 2701, Plot No. R3 B Emerald Bay, Sector Vs. 14 Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Thane 400706

Section 143Section 147Section 148

form of long-term capital gain/loss. The penny stock shares have been subject matter of price manipulation on the stock exchange i.e., price rigging with a view to enable sales at inflated prices and stock exchange which is not commensurate with the performance of prospects of the company. The assessee

Banwari Purshottam Bhargav, Andheri West Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(3), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

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

ITA 2182/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year 2014-15 Banwari Purshottam Bhargav, Income Tax Officer-24(1)(3), Flat No. 202, Panch Amrut, Piramal Chamber, Panch Complex, Off. Yari Road, Vs. Lalbaug, Versova, Andheri West, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aabpb7453M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69

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. 15. We noticed earlier that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Keshavji Nongha Shah, Mumbai

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

ITA 862/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year : 2014-15 Asst.Commissioner Of Income Keshavji Nongha Shah, Tax, M/S. Ankur Harganga Mahal, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Khodad Circle, Dadar T.T., Lalbaug, Mumbai Mumbai. Pan : Aaeps6097B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nishit Gandhi, For Revenue : Shri P.D. Chougule,(Addl.Cit) Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-10-2024 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule,(Addl.CIT) Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68

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. 14. Accordingly, we hold that the long

Anju Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 4(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3158/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalanju Chirania, Vs. Ito, Ward –4(1)(3), 301, Sona Chambers, Room No. 637, 507/509, Jss Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Chira Bazar, Marine Lines, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 002. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. Afcpc9073Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) himself through the Assessing Officer to establish complicity of the appellant or her broker in particular, with any price rigging that might be going on and acted upon by the SEBI to protect the interests of the bonafide investors like the appellant ... 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

Sadhu Ram Balani, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

ITA 470/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Indore24 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanisadhu Ram Balani Ito-5(1) Flat No.B-503, Moti Mahal Indore Apartment 28-A, Sector-C Vs. Scheme No.71, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspb5367L Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing 04.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 133A

details is mentioned about any search or survey wherein any material is found against the assessee to show that the assessee was involved in price rigging or manipulation of price at stock market of the shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. The relevant observations of the AO are reproduced

Zula Merchandisc Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 68

companies out of the above mentioned 5 companies. In the case of Rutron, only 14 persons were suspected to be involved in price rigging who were restrained from accessing the security market for a period of 6 months. Neither the assessee nor his share brokers were ever named for restrain ... invest in those companies was based on business prudence and that there was no evidence, even circumstantial, that the assessee was involved in price rigging or otherwise instrumental to book bogus short term capital loss. 11. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the facts of the case

Nilima Kothari, Indore vs. The Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Asstt. Centre, Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

ITA 259/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradsmt. Neelima Kothari, Income Tax Officer, 601, N.R.K. Villas, Delhi Vs. 22/2 Manoramaganj, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Adnpk7832J Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.09.2024

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

hence addition made under section 68 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Neither there was any allegation against appellant individually regarding involvement in price rigging of shares nor there was adverse witness relating to the genuineness of the transaction. No incriminating evidence material was found against the appellant

DCIT 27 (2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai vs. Narayan Tatu Rane, Chembur

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4716/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

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

DCIT-27(2), Mumbai, Navi Mumbai vs. Narayan Tatu Rane, HUF, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4668/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

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

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 99/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

companies out of the above mentioned 5 companies. In the case of Rutron, only 14 persons were suspected to be involved in price rigging who were restrained from accessing the security market for a period of 6 months. Neither the assessee nor his share brokers were ever named for restrain ... invest in those companies was based on business prudence and that there was no evidence, even circumstantial, that the assessee was involved in price rigging or otherwise instrumental to book bogus short term capital loss. 11. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the facts of the case

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

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 100/KOL/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Sept 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rites Goel, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

companies out of the above mentioned 5 companies. In the case of Rutron, only 14 persons were suspected to be involved in price rigging who were restrained from accessing the security market for a period of 6 months. Neither the assessee nor his share brokers were ever named for restrain ... invest in those companies was based on business prudence and that there was no evidence, even circumstantial, that the assessee was involved in price rigging or otherwise instrumental to book bogus short term capital loss. 11. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the facts of the case

Vikas Malu, Uae vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 818/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 153A

purchase of shares. The Revenue has not shown any allegation against the assessee per se by the SEBI that it has participated in any price rigging in the market while deriving such gains. The ld. counsel submitted that the facts in the present case are identical. In similar ... mother of enquiry but a mere suspicion however cannot take place of the proof. The AO has the involvement of the assessee in alleged price rigging in any manner. Balance- sheet test of the company under sale, by itself is not sufficient to disprove the transaction as held

Vikas Malu, Uae vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 817/Del/2023 is partly allowed

ITA 817/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151Section 153A

purchase of shares. The Revenue has not shown any allegation against the assessee per se by the SEBI that it has participated in any price rigging in the market while deriving such gains. The ld. counsel submitted that the facts in the present case are identical. In similar ... mother of enquiry but a mere suspicion however cannot take place of the proof. The AO has the involvement of the assessee in alleged price rigging in any manner. Balance- sheet test of the company under sale, by itself is not sufficient to disprove the transaction as held

Haresh Dilip Vora, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-34(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3646/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shrigirish Agrawal

For Appellant: ShriNishit GandhiFor Respondent: ShriP.D. Chougule (Addl. CIT) SRDR
Section 10(38)Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

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 ... evidence even worth a name that assessee's own money has been routed back to him. There is no nexus with the assessee with price rigging and no adverse observation from stock exchange. The addition simply on third party statement is uncalled for. We respectfully relied on the order

Nirav Shailendra Mody, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(4), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1039/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

long term capital gains by conniving with the so called entry operators, promoters of Sunrise Asian Ltd 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 ... which assessee had dealt. In the said order, SEBI had listed out the names and PAN of various persons who were involved in artificial price rigging of shares and the list of beneficiaries. The assessee's name or the broker through whom the assessee bought and sold the shares does

Ram Awatar Dhoot, Kolkata vs. Ward 22(4) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 91/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 29B, Rabindra Sarani Floor, Room No.10E, Kolkata-700073. [Pan: Adepd7419F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, Self, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 29, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.14,94,407/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

held that as per the report received from the Investigation Wing, there I.T.A. No.91/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ram Awatar Dhoot was large scale price rigging of certain scrips, whereby, the bogus long- term capital gains/losses have been claimed by various assessees. He relying upon the said investigation report, held

Pramod Kumar Saraf, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-22(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 683/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Pramod Kumar Saraf...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 24, R. N Mukherjee Road, Mission Row, Kol-1. [Pan: Apkps6814F] Vs. Ito, Ward-22(2), Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 28, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.03.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Levy/Confirmation Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Claimed Long- Term Capital Gains On Account Of Sale Of Shares At Rs.7,10,447/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Produced Relevant Documents To Substantiate His Claim, However, The Assessing Officer Held That As Per The Report Received From The Investigation Wing, There Was Large Scale Price Rigging Of Certain Scrips, Whereby, The Bogus Long-Term

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

documents to substantiate his claim, however, the Assessing Officer held that as per the report received from the Investigation Wing, there was large scale price rigging of certain scrips, whereby, the bogus long-term I.T.A. No.683/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 capital gains/losses have been claimed by various assessees. He relying