“price rigging”

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

investigation report and the statement of the director of M/s. 4 Alka Rajesh Vanigota Greencrest Financial Services Ltd., who purportedly admitted to price rigging of the company’s shares. Without a cogent rebuttal of the assessee’s evidentiary record, the AO proceeded to incorporate the findings of the investigation ... this respect that market movement and financial results of any company is the deciding factor in share prices going up or down. Such price rigging helped the assessee to launder unaccounted money in the form of pre-arranged bogus LTCG. 6 Alka Rajesh Vanigota 4. The assessee sold 132700 shares

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

present case, still the revenue has not brought on record any materials linking the assessee in any 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. 4. Mr. Walve placed

Mr. Durgesh Ramashankar Rai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

broker are in the scrips of bogus companies and that the AO has nor recorded any finding linking the assessee to the price rigging. We also notice that the AO has not recorded any adverse findings regarding the broker's statement or the other documentary evidences filed by the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Piramal Chambers vs. Ketan Dilip Shah, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Income Tax Officer Ketan Dilip Shah Room No. 613, 6Th Floor, Vs A- 151, Grand Paradi Apartments, Piramal Chambers, August Kranti Marg, Cumballa Hill, Maharashtra-400012. Maharashtra-400026. [Pan: Aaeps3824N] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

assessing officer. The entire transaction of shares is genuine. There is no allegation either against the broker of assessee or assessee in price rigging of shares. The assessing officer acted solely on the basis of alleged information from 4 Ketan Dilip Shah Investigation Wing. The ld. CIT(A) allowed relief

Balram Chainrai, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No 519/Mum/2025 is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

that the applicant itself is the manipulator. The Applicant has undertaken trades in a manipulated scrip under complete awareness regarding the price- rigging, being a complicit member by way of private placement entry. The Applicant has harvested the bogus losses in a planned, passive manner. The Applicant is a beneficiary ... also argued that nothing has been brought on record by revenue incriminating the assessee that he has been part of price rigging and that mere trading in alleged penny stock cannot be held as non-genuine unless it is evidenced that the assessee is involved in price rigging

Mark Corporate Advisores Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Mark Corporate Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Assistant Commissioner Of 404/1, The Summit Business Bay, Income-Tax, Circle 1(2), Sant Janabai Road, Opp Western Mumbai Express Highway, Vs. Vile Parle East S.O., Mumbai – 400057 (Pan: Aafcm5379J) (Appellant) (Respondent)

nothing brought on record to demonstrate that name of the assessee finds place in the investigation reports to hold that it is involved in price rigging of the alleged two scrips as penny stock. Merely because some shareholders/operators colluded in the alleged rigging of share prices and merely because assessee ... benefited indirectly, cannot be the reason to disallow the claim of loss by the assessee by alleging that assessee has participated in price rigging of the two scrips. Considering the overall factual matrix of the present case, as narrated above in detail, supported by the judicial precedents referred above

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 4(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankur Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Prabhash Shankar, ()

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 ... receipt through cheque. In other words, there is no evidence that the cash was recycled. The assessee is not a party to alleged price rigging. He has no nexus with the company, its directors or operators. He is not concerned with the activity of broker and has no control over