“price rigging”

ACIT-23(1), Mumbai vs. Keyur Dilip Shah, Mumbai

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Acit-23(1) Keyur Dilip Shah Room No. 511, 5Th Floor 1St Floor, 71 Piramal Chambers Vs. Mirza Street Lower Parel Mumbai-400 003. Mumbai-400 012. Pan : Aadps8929D Appellant Respondent

dividend also. b) Purchase and sale of shares was done through registered broker and banking channels. 2 c) He is not involved in any price rigging of the shares. d) Relied on the order of ITAT, Mumbai in similar circumstances in the case of his relative Ketan Dilip Shah

Mukesh Vallabhdas Shah, Bhayender vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Thane

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. On perusal of the records, we find that the assessee, herself never involved in price rigging of the scrips. The Ld. AO has not conducted independent investigation and fully relied on the observation of the investigating authority of Kolkata ... 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." iii) Vipul Patel

Income Tax Officer 22(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Sachin Durgesh Chheda, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

while the financials of the company did not align with the share prices, there was no evidence linking assessee to any dubious transactions or price rigging and even in the SEBI 7 ITA No. 3376/Mum/2025 Sachin Durgesh Chheda, Mumbai. report there is no mention or reference to the involvement

ACIT Circle 24(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Manglam Financial Services, Mumbai

In the result ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing)

scrips. The ld. CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee on accepting the submission of assessee. The modus operandi of entry provider or price rigging clearly shows that it was a penny scrip. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue prayed for restoring the order of assessing officer by reversing ... purchase cost of such shares. In fact, the assessee has earned gain of Rs. 2,021/- only. The assessee is not involved either in price rigging or in manipulation. The assessing officer has not proved the nexus of broker of assessee with alleged entry provider. The assessee is bona fide

Tapas Chaturvedi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14

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

Manisha Kamal Khetan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in terms of our

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

bank statements does not establish the genuneness of the transaction. The AO has noted the unusual rise and fall in share prices, which suggests price rigging. The appellant has not provided any satisfactory explanation regarding this volatility. The absence of direct evidence linking the appellant to entry operators does ... System (SCORES) towards the compliance made by the investors, but that does not prove that the assessee was anyhow involved in the issues of price rigging. Regarding the exit providers, it is submitted by the ld. AR that there was no information about existence of exit providers in the case

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Haresh Kumar Manjibhai Patel, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue fails and is dismissed in its entirety

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

trades lay wholly outside the compass of the investigation period. 13.1. More importantly, SEBI had recorded a categorical finding that there was no price rigging during the relevant investigation period and that the enquiry did not reveal any 14 ITA No.3633/Mum/2024 & CO No.147/Mum/2025 Hareshkumar Manjibhai Patel disproportionate gain or unfair

Income Tax Officer 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shrem Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

losses in one year and earned profit in subsequent years. AO has not pointed out as to whether the assessee is part of such price rigging. 14.5 Further, AO has also relied on statement of Mr.Naresh Jain to hold that the transaction carried out by the assessee is not genuine ... case, since it had never claimed exempt capital gains, but had only disclosed business income and losses from trading. Similarly, the allegation of price rigging was said to be irrelevant, as the assessee had not derived any abnormal profits or windfalls. On the contrary, it had invested nearly

Income Tax Officer 11 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. Everfine Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue

losses in one year and earned profit in subsequent years. AO has not pointed out as to whether the assessee is part of such price rigging. 14.5 Further, AO has also relied on statement of Mr.Naresh Jain to hold that the transaction carried out by the assessee is not genuine ... case, since it had never claimed exempt capital gains, but had only disclosed business income and losses from trading. Similarly, the allegation of price rigging was said to be irrelevant, as the assessee had not derived any abnormal profits or windfalls. On the contrary, it had invested nearly Rs.7 crores

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Everfine Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

losses in one year and earned profit in subsequent years. AO has not pointed out as to whether the assessee is part of such price rigging. 14.5 Further, AO has also relied on statement of Mr.Naresh Jain to hold that the transaction carried out by the assessee is not genuine ... case, since it had never claimed exempt capital gains, but had only disclosed business income and losses from trading. Similarly, the allegation of price rigging was said to be irrelevant, as the assessee had not derived any abnormal profits or windfalls. On the contrary, it had invested nearly