“price rigging”

Aadesh Commodities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai Suburban vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.Saadesh Commodities Pvt Ltd Vs National Faceless Assessment 401, Satyam Tower, 90 Feet Centre, Delhi Road, Asha Nagar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai-400 101 Pan : Aahca3726H Appellant Respondent

made through banking channel, STT is paid and the ld. Assessing officers has not criticised the documents and (b) assessee is not involved in price rigging, the transaction is genuine. 11. And Abhay Kumar Daga HUF vs ITO (supra). In this case the coordinate bench of Jodhpur accepted the transaction

Smt Pawanben Pannalal Gulecha, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-18(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed on merits

perusal of the report and order of the SEBI in the matter of Gavit Industries Ltd., we find that there is no reference of price rigging or any adverse inference or ban on the trading of the scrip of Ganesh Spinners Ltd. and only certain consequential actions were taken against

Shri Pannalal Hastimal Gulecha, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-23(2)(7), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed on merits

perusal of the report and order of the SEBI in the matter of Gavit Industries Ltd., we find that there is no reference of price rigging or any adverse inference or ban on the trading of the scrip of Ganesh Spinners Ltd. and only certain consequential actions were taken against

Rohit Devendra Goyal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-33(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

assessee and by bringing on record, any cogent material to sustain those additions, could not be discharged by the revenue. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without establishing the vital link between the assessee and various entities of Shri Alok Harlalka. We find that the whole basis

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

shares in graph/chart form (refer para 7.3.1 page 6 to 15); and then AO was of the opinion that unusual price movements depicts the price rigging resorted by the entry providers in active connivance with pre-arranged exit providers. The AO took note of the rise in closing price ... SEBI dated 05.06.2020 wherein the name of the assessee or his registered share broker was not reflected as defaulters or persons involved in artificial price rigging of shares. Hence, the observations and findings recorded by us for AY. 2015-16 also. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised

Lalitaben Pravin Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

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 ... notice that, in the instant case, 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. Hence the ratio laid down in the above said cases by the jurisdictional

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

Appeals are dismissed

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

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 7(1)(1), Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai vs. Nisha Shantaram Pokle, Mumbai

Greencrest as well as the price movement of shares in graph/chart form; and AO was of the opinion that unusual price movements depicts the price rigging resorted by the entry providers in active connivance with pre-arranged exit providers. The AO took note of the rise in closing price between ... SEBI dated 05.06.2020 wherein the name of the assessee or his registered share broker was not reflected as defaulters or persons involved in artificial price rigging of shares. Hence, the observations and findings recorded by us for AY. 2015-16 also. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2484/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ajay Shankarlal Bankda बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-16(2) B Wing 4301, Db Woods, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gokuldham, Goregaon East, Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400063. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchagate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpb2851J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,06,950/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

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 ... come to a finding that there is no allegation against 28 A.Y. 2014-15 Ajay Shankarlal Bankda 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

Income Tax Officer-27(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sachin Velji Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm

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 ... 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

ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alpha Rajendra Jain, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Jm)

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 ... notice that, in the instant case, 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. Hence the ratio laid down in the above said cases by the jurisdictional

Abhishek Tejraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleabhishek Tejraj Doshi V. Income Tax Officer 259, 2Nd Floor, Johari Mansion Jurisdiction Circle 19(1), Kalbadevi Road, Kalbadevi Mumbai, Mumbai Mumbai 400002 Pan: Aegpd9279J (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Anil Sathe Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

same time, the revenue has not brought on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry, price rigging or exit providers. Even in the SEBI report, there is no mention or reference to the involvement of the assessee. We can only presume that ... 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. Page No. 20 Abhishek

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

shares by the assessee (from January 2010 to Mar 2011) no action was taken by SEBI against the assessee or her broker for price rigging or to be part of any illegal activity in respect of price rigging proves the fact that the assessee has nothing to do with ... 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

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

shares by the assessee (from March 2011 to October 2012) no action was taken by SEBI against the assessee or his broker for price rigging or to be part of any illegal activity in respect of price rigging proves the fact that the assessee has nothing to do with ... 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

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

holding of shares by the assessee (from 2009 to 2012) no action was taken by SEBI against the assessee or her broker for price rigging or to be part of any illegal activity in respect of price rigging proves the fact that the assessee has nothing to do with ... 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

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

tenure of holding of shares by the assessee (from 19.11.2009 to26.05.2011) no action was taken by SEBI against the assessee or her broker for price rigging or to be part of any illegal activity in respect of price rigging proves the fact that the assessee has nothing to do with ... 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

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

found to be not explained to his satisfaction; and further according to AO, SEBI has acted against one Jigar Group for indulging in price rigging of shares of M/s PIL, M/s Gemstone and M/s KGN; and thereafter he held that assessee has resorted to the transaction from which LTCG ... from 2.05.2008 16 A.Y. 2011-12 Sheetal Rupesh Savla to 22.03.2011) no action was taken by SEBI against the assessee or her broker for price rigging or to be part of any illegal activity in respect of price rigging shows that the assessee has nothing to do with the change

Pradipkumar Harakchand Doshi, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blepradipkumar Harakchand Doshi V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) 94/100, 2Nd Floor Matru Mandir, Grant Road 2Nd Pathan Street Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aahpd4722B (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Assessee Represented By : Department Represented By : Shri H.M. Bhatt

present case, still the revenue has not brought on record any materials linking the assessee in any of the dubious transactions relating to entry, price rigging or exit providers. Even in the SEBI report, there is no mention or reference to the involvement of the assessee. We can only presume ... 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

Anoopkumar Devidas Raimalani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Cir-18(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

long term capital gain such as findings of the Investigation Wing, Investigations in the case of operators, Analysis of Scrip M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited, price rigging, examination of persons with which assessee traded (exit entry provider), SEBI Report with regard to accommodation entry providers (for the sake of brevity ... 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. 44. From the above