← 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

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Sureshkumar Bhikalal Thakker, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

ITA 1593/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69A

that the Assessing Officer had not brought on record any evidence to establish that the assessee or his broker was involved in the price rigging of Safal Herbs Ltd. The CIT(Appeals) accordingly held that the transactions could not be treated as bogus merely on the basis of general investigation

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Bhaveshkumar Girishbhai Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

ITA 979/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68

Group cases. The search revealed incriminating evidence such as digital data, loose papers, and electronic devices indicating that the Kushal Group was engaged in price rigging and providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG), Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG), and losses to various beneficiaries ... shares, and that his transactions fell outside the period of SEBI's investigation. Thus, there was no material to link him with any alleged price rigging or scam. After considering the assessment records and the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) held that the AO had made the addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Bhaveshkumar Girishbhai Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of

ITA 978/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68

Group cases. The search revealed incriminating evidence such as digital data, loose papers, and electronic devices indicating that the Kushal Group was engaged in price rigging and providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG), Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG), and losses to various beneficiaries ... shares, and that his transactions fell outside the period of SEBI's investigation. Thus, there was no material to link him with any alleged price rigging or scam. After considering the assessment records and the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) held that the AO had made the addition

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Girishkumar Amratlal Bhandari HUF, Himatnagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of

ITA 977/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68

Group cases. The search revealed incriminating evidence such as digital data, loose papers, and electronic devices indicating that the Kushal Group was engaged in price rigging and providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG), Short-Term Capital Gains (STCG), and losses to various beneficiaries ... shares, and that his transactions fell outside the period of SEBI's investigation. Thus, there was no material to link him with any alleged price rigging or scam. After considering the assessment records and the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(Appeals) held that the AO had made the addition

Saloni Girrajkishor Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 25(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3234/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankarsaloni Girrajkishor Agrawal V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1601/1602, Green Acre, बनाम –25(1)(1),Kautilya Bhavan, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai – 400 053, Bandra (East), Mumbai – Maharashtra 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Anupa1692D Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)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 ... present case, Revenue has not brought on record any material about participation of the assessee with any such dubious transactions relating to accommodation entry, price rigging or exit providers. To our mind, Ld. AO could have taken an adverse view only if he could point out the discrepancies or insufficiency

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Kalawati Devi, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee’s share transactions were non-genuine. The Assessing Officer has not relied upon any seized document but only on general reports of price rigging in penny stocks. This, in our view, cannot be equated with incriminating material found during search as envisaged under section 153A. The Hon’ble Supreme

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Vinesh Kumar Balar, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee’s share transactions were non-genuine. The Assessing Officer has not relied upon any seized document but only on general reports of price rigging in penny stocks. This, in our view, cannot be equated with incriminating material found during search as envisaged under section 153A. The Hon’ble Supreme

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Sohanraj Balar, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 288/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee’s share transactions were non-genuine. The Assessing Officer has not relied upon any seized document but only on general reports of price rigging in penny stocks. This, in our view, cannot be equated with incriminating material found during search as envisaged under section 153A. The Hon’ble Supreme

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jodhpur vs. Praveen Balar, Pali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 287/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal-CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessee’s share transactions were non-genuine. The Assessing Officer has not relied upon any seized document but only on general reports of price rigging in penny stocks. This, in our view, cannot be equated with incriminating material found during search as envisaged under section 153A. The Hon’ble Supreme

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh, Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 347/ASR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

enquired at any stage nor any enquiry conducted and there is no adverse statement against the assessee , (iv) in case of Surabhi Chemical script , price rigging was established that the company was involved in artificial rigging of price to provide bogus LTCG , but in the instant case there ... such finding of price rigging against the company and only action taken by SEBI , against the company was suspension of trading due to non-payment of ALF dues ( with the remarks : Company has not paid Annual Listing Fees and is in violation of SEBI and Exchange Regulations ), which according

Smt. Satyawati Marwaha Through Legal Heir Sh. Chander Sheikhar Marwaha, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

ITA 346/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 144Section 144rSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250(6)Section 68

enquired at any stage nor any enquiry conducted and there is no adverse statement against the assessee , (iv) in case of Surabhi Chemical script , price rigging was established that the company was involved in artificial rigging of price to provide bogus LTCG , but in the instant case there ... such finding of price rigging against the company and only action taken by SEBI , against the company was suspension of trading due to non-payment of ALF dues ( with the remarks : Company has not paid Annual Listing Fees and is in violation of SEBI and Exchange Regulations ), which according

Suresh Maheshwari, Mumbai vs. The DCIT, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3370/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms. Padmavathy Ssuresh Maheshwari, The Dcit, 3Rd Floor, 16, New Silk Bazar, Circle 19(3) Vs. Gandhi Mansion, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400002 Parel, Mumbai 400012 (Appellant) : (Respondent) Pan No. Aafpm 4397R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

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

Anoop Jain HUF, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

state that this order also contained the cases of family members of the assessee wherein SEBI has held that those companies were involved in price rigging. The copy of the said order of Tribunal is available at Pages 316 to 322 in Paper Book filed by the assessee. Since such

Anoop Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4042/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

state that this order also contained the cases of family members of the assessee wherein SEBI has held that those companies were involved in price rigging. The copy of the said order of Tribunal is available at Pages 316 to 322 in Paper Book filed by the assessee. Since such

Ritu Jain, Delhi vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), CC - 1, Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4038/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Ritu Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1 Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aampj9586C Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aadpj2136K Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] Anoop Jain Huf Vs Jcit (Osd) No.11, Barbar Lane, Bengali Central Circle-1, Market, New Delhi-110001 Noida Pan-Aaaha6321A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Tulsian, Adv. & Shri Bhoomija Verma, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahes Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 142(1)Section 142(2)Section 142(3)Section 143(2)Section 153A

state that this order also contained the cases of family members of the assessee wherein SEBI has held that those companies were involved in price rigging. The copy of the said order of Tribunal is available at Pages 316 to 322 in Paper Book filed by the assessee. Since such

Archit Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Archit Gupta Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of B-41, Kailsah Colony, Income Tax, Circle 29, New Delhi Jhandewalan Extension Pan: Aeupg2360R New Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv, Ms.Monalisa Maity, Adv Revenue By Sh. Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/10/2025 Order

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

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

Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 168/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

India’s securities market with the role of protecting the investors, promoting market development and regulating the market. It prohibits unfair trade practices, curbs price rigging and prevents insider trading. It also enforces a code of conduct for the market participants. The order

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat vs. Deepesh Vishnu Agarwal, Surat

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.168/Srt/2025 Assessment Years: 2019-20 (Hybrid Hearing) Depesh Vishnu Agarwal Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- Vs. Road, Surat-395 007 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.122/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, Ward- Depesh Vishnu Agarwal बनाम/ 1(2),(1), Surat (Old Ward- A-301, Surya Plaza, U.M. Vs. 1(2)(6), Surat) Aaykar Road, Surat-395 007 Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aispa 2948 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manish Malpani, Ca राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/10/2025

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149ASection 250Section 69Section 69C

India’s securities market with the role of protecting the investors, promoting market development and regulating the market. It prohibits unfair trade practices, curbs price rigging and prevents insider trading. It also enforces a code of conduct for the market participants. The order

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 498/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

several hundred of crores, all these persons have used sock exchange platform through exit providers, connivance with the brokers, directors of suspicious companies, price rigging through synchronized trade a money laundering exercise involving serious violation of Income tax, Securities law, Corporate Laws, banking laws and several other economic

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

several hundred of crores, all these persons have used sock exchange platform through exit providers, connivance with the brokers, directors of suspicious companies, price rigging through synchronized trade a money laundering exercise involving serious violation of Income tax, Securities law, Corporate Laws, banking laws and several other economic