“price rigging”

Yashwant Raj Lalchand Bamboli, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail & Shri Prabhash Shankaryashwant Raj Lalchand V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Bamboli बनाम 27(3)(5), 4Th Floor, Tower 7, Trimurti Building, 105-A, No. 6, Vashi Station N.G. Acharaya Marg, Complex, Mumbai –400703, Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aijpb5149A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

specifically called upon both the assessee and the Revenue to clarify whether any regulatory action had been initiated by SEBI in respect of alleged price rigging or manipulation of the shares of M/s. Surabhi Chemicals & Investments Ltd., either during the relevant period or thereafter. It has been fairly submitted ... Yashwant Raj Lalchand Bamboli, Mumbai 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

Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

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 ... direct evidence produced by the assessee, it is evident that, unlike others, the assessee was neither a participant nor a beneficiary in any alleged price rigging or manipulation. Consequently, the Revenue’s reliance on general observations in the assessment order about the brokers, syndicate members and entry operator, which

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Supama Financial Service Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2014-15

Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the Penny stock companies, the entry operators who managed the dummy compan dummy companies involved in price rigging. The money trail of ies involved in price rigging. The money trail of the transactions was also examined and, in a large number ... situation, even otherwise holding was of 78.83%. In such a situation, even otherwise holding was of 78.83%. In such a situation, even otherwise price rigging was not possible. price rigging was not possible. Supama Financial Service Ltd Supama Financial Service Ltd 13 (ix) Merely because absence of return (ix) Merely

Narendra Shantilal Bapna, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, WD-28(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarnarendra Shantilal Bapna V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Flat No. A2501, Plot No. R3 बनाम 28(2)(3) B Emerald Bay, Sector 14, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Vashi Nerul, Navi Mumbai – Station Complex, Vashi, Navi 400 706, Maharashtra Mumbai– 400703, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aclpb8458J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

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

Mrs. Sanjana Anil Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing) Mrs. Sanjana Anil Agarwal Ito, 18(3)(2), Mumbai 27/31, Botawala Building, 3Rd Floor, Vs Earnest House, Nariman Point, Old Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi Road, Maharashtra – 400021. Maharashtra - 400002. [Pan: Abgpa3779D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

carried out by the Investigation Wing of department. The assessing officer has given detail background of penny scrip companies’ modus operandi and method of price rigging. The assessee has shown abnormal benefit on sale of share Shreenath. The ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee on the basis ... registered broker. The shares were kept in Demat account. The bonus share and sales were made through Demat account. There is no allegation of price rigging against the assessee or his share broker. 9. We find that Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Himani M. Vakil

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Girraj Kishor Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the grouds of appea raised by the revenue are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

market. ITA No. 3769/Mum/2025 & C.O. No. 215/Mum/2025 Girraj Kishor Agrawal The ld. CIT(A) also noted that SEBI has not found any manipulation in price rigging of SHREENATH. There is no allegation in price rigging against the assessee. There is no allegation that assessee is directly or indirectly involved ... manipulation of alleged share. Even the entry operator Vipul Vidur Bhatt has not stated in anything that assessee is involved in any activities of price rigging or providing accommodation entry. The ld. CIT(A) by referring certain decision of Tribunal wherein script of Shreenath was in disputed and those assessee