“price rigging”

Vipul J. Modi HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

Bench: the ITAT. a) The appellant claims that the share of M/s ICVL Chemicals Ltd. was not a penny stock when the shares were sold. It was only post take over, the name of the company ICVL Chemicals Ltd. was changed to Ram Minerals & Chemicals Ltd. on 11.07.2014. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld.AR of the appellant filed a chronology of events, which shows that they were holding shares of Intellivate Capital Ventures Ltd. (“ICVL”) from 2010 and the purchase consideration was

take over by Ram Alloy Castings Pvt.Ltd., the prices were rigged and as per SEBI order, Ram Minerals was found to be indulging in price rigging and consequently identified as penny stock. (b) The Ld.AR of the appellant has also submitted that in the cases of their family members ... should be allowed to him. During the hearing proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld.AR of the appellant has emphasized that whatever the price rigging of the shares, which has happened is after selling the shares by the appellant and hence, the findings of SEBI are not relevant

Jay Hansraj Chheda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Mr. Jay Hansraj Chheda Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1) Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Villa, Matru Mandir, Room No. 221, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) (Respondent) : Income Tax Officer Jay Hansraj Chheda Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Room No. 502, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Villa, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) : (Respondent)

SEBI order dated 19.09.20217 enclosed in the paper book, where it has categorically stated that the assessee was not involved in the price rigging of the said shares, which clearly indicates that the assessee’s transaction to that extent is genuine. The ld. AR also argued ITA No. 2656 & 2631/Mum/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

Ranjanben Chunilal Gada, Mumbai vs. Tio 34(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

orders of authorities below.It is submitted that the addition has been rightly made based on the admission of Sri Naresh Jain who admitted price rigging. The assessee did not request for any cross examination during assessment sam Qu Qe Page |12 ITA No. 5842/Mum/2025 ALY. 2014-15 Ranjanben Chunilal Gada ... claiming deductions under section 10(38) and revenue had not brought on record any materials linking assessee in any dubious transactions relating to entry, price rigging or exit providers Even in SEBI report, there was no mention or reference to involvement of assessee Whether, therefore, impugned addition

Arvind Bhaguji Kangane, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-27(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 2 and 3 of appeal are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Arvind Bhanguji Kangane Dcit, Circle – 27(1), Mumbai Shreyas Building, 11Th Road, Plot No. 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Vs 553, Flat No. 901, 9Th Floor, Opp. Railway Station Building, Navi Heritage Pride Building, Chembur, Mumbai – 400703. Mumbai – 400026. [Pan: Afypk1856R] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

assessee is regularly investor in shares. There is no allegation that 6 Arvind Bhaguji Kangane assessee or his brokers were involved in alleged price rigging. There is no investigation by Security and Exchange Board of India(SEBI) against the broker of assessee. STT was paid at the time of sale

Ketan Harilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commssioner of Income Tax - 32(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

various places shows non application of mind on his part. During investigation of SEBI there is no evidence that the assessee is involved in price rigging. So, the addition is itself uncalled for. 4. The Ld. AR submitted that, during the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee duly complied ... sale of shares and the sale proceeds are received through banking channel. The A.O has not established that the assessee was involved in the price rigging of the shares and also any enquiry was conducted by the SEBI and BSE. Further as discussed in the above paragraphs, the Honble Tribunal

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

scrip by SEBI was only for a brief period owing to technical or procedural reasons, and not on account of any finding of price rigging or manipulation. No 9 ITA No.84/Mum/2024 and CO No.43/Mum/2024 Avin Rajendrakumar Agrawal adverse order has been passed by SEBI holding that the scrip was involved

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Varun Vimlesh Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

page numbers 22 to 24 of the impugned order and the same are not under dispute. 5.3 The Ld. CIT-DR has alleged price rigging /manipulation on the part of the assessee to submit that the same was done to generate fictitious LTCG for the investors. However, we find that ... disclosure under Rule 7(1) of SEBI Regulations, 1997. The order of SEBI does not allege that Banas Finance Ltd., was indulged in price rigging. It is thus very clear that SEBI had not considered Banas Finance Ltd., to be involved in rigging of prices that led to the steep

Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak, Borivali Mumbai vs. Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 32 3 Mumbai Presently Dy C I T Circle 42 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Sindhumati Ramavtar Pathak Acit-32(3) 4, Shree Bhalchandra Kripa Presently Cit, Circle Building, Daulat Nagar Road Vs. 42(3)(1) No. 3, Borivali East Kautilya Bhavan Bkc, Mumbai-400 066. Mumbai-51. Pan : Agbpp5972D Appellant Respondent

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

Nikhil Ashok Shivdikar, Parel Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20 2 4 Mumbai, Lalbaug Parel

Bench: him.

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

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwarjka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

remind ourselves that, similar allegations had been levelled by the SEBI in as much as this watchdog had directly suspected the assessee of price rigging to reap LTCG, in their interim order passed in 2014. As noted earlier, upon completion of the investigation, SEBI has specifically exonerated the assessee ... case, since the direct evidences brought on record by the assessee shows that, unlike others, he was not a party or beneficiary of any price rigging or manipulation, the Revenue's reliance on the above referred third party statements, which as noted above, does not even pertain to the assessee

Dy.C.I, T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

remind ourselves that, similar allegations had been levelled by the SEBI in as much as this watchdog had directly suspected the assessee of price rigging to reap LTCG, in their interim order passed in 2014. As noted earlier, upon completion of the investigation, SEBI has specifically exonerated the assessee ... case, since the direct evidences brought on record by the assessee shows that, unlike others, he was not a party or beneficiary of any price rigging or manipulation, the Revenue's reliance on the above referred third party statements, which as noted above, does not even pertain to the assessee

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

remind ourselves that, similar allegations had been levelled by the SEBI in as much as this watchdog had directly suspected the assessee of price rigging to reap LTCG, in their interim order passed in 2014. As noted earlier, upon completion of the investigation, SEBI has specifically exonerated the assessee ... case, since the direct evidences brought on record by the assessee shows that, unlike others, he was not a party or beneficiary of any price rigging or manipulation, the Revenue's reliance on the above referred third party statements, which as noted above, does not even pertain to the assessee

Dy C.I.T. Cent Cir -6(2), `Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

remind ourselves that, similar allegations had been levelled by the SEBI in as much as this watchdog had directly suspected the assessee of price rigging to reap LTCG, in their interim order passed in 2014. As noted earlier, upon completion of the investigation, SEBI has specifically exonerated the assessee ... case, since the direct evidences brought on record by the assessee shows that, unlike others, he was not a party or beneficiary of any price rigging or manipulation, the Revenue's reliance on the above referred third party statements, which as noted above, does not even pertain to the assessee

Alpesh K. Ajmera HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record any cogent material to sustain the addition. The allegation of price rigging / manipulation has been levied without establishing the vital link between the assessee and other entities. The whole basis of making additions is third party statement

DCIT - 19(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Dishant Deepak Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2016-17

evidence that the cash was recycled. The assessee is cash was recycled. The assessee is not a party not a party to alleged price rigging. He has no nexus with to alleged price rigging. He has no nexus with to alleged price rigging. He has no nexus with ... directors of company or broker were that directors of company or broker were that directors of company or broker were involved in involved in price rigging. The Assessee has got price rigging. The Assessee has got only incidental benefit of only incidental benefit of price rise. The assessee price rise

Shri Hareshkumar Mafatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeshri Hareshkumar Mafatlal Vs Acit 19(1), Mumbai Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, Matru Shah, 18/9, 1St Floor, Hariharwala Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai- Building, 10/11, S.V.P. Road, 400007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Anqps5958J Applicant Respondent

India (SEBI), asserting that the final SEBI order did not mention the assessee’s name. Therefore, the assessee was not implicated in any price rigging or other malpractices. Further, the Ld. AR contended that the revenue relied on orders that did not consider the judgment of the Hon’ble High