“price rigging”

Leela Tarachand Kothari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarleela Tarachand Kothari, V/S. Income Tax Officer – 1St Floor, Naimal Niketan, बनाम 19(2)(1), Room No. 221, 221, Khetwadi Main Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai - 400 004, Mumbai – 400007, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaqpk2820K Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

unaccounted money into long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains etc.by conniving with any entry operator/exit provider, who were involved in artificial price rigging of shares. Rather, the AO merely on the basis of suspicion rejected the claim of the assessee, without establishing any link between the assessee ... with the entry operators/exit providers, who were allegedly involved in price rigging of shares artificially of the aforesaid companies. P a g e | 8 A.Y. 2014-15 Leela Tarachand Kothari 6.1 It may be stated here that the coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai has decided certain cases as described below

Amee Shreyance Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the above appeal of the assessee is

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

ITO, Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Laxmilal Sethia, Mumbai

In the result, both, appeal of the Revenue and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

making additions based on assumptions, presumptions, suspicions and surmises. GROUND No. 15 The Ld. AO erred in linking me to dubious transaction or price rigging without having any evidence of linking me to such acts. 5 Co No. 59/Mum/2025 & ITA No. 588/Mum/2025 Laxmilal Sethia, A.Y. 2011-12 3. Facts ... 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

Vinod Hirachand Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-19(3), Lalbaug, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Vinod Hirachandsanghvi Acit, Circle-19(3), Mumbai 315, Gr. Floor, Gogari Mansion, Vs Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, 1 Carpenter Street, Charni Road, Parel, Mumbai, Mumbai-400004. Maharashtra-400012. [Pan No. Afmps3101F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

stock exchange. The assessee paid STT on purchase as well as on sale. There is no allegation against the stock broker of assessee about price rigging or manipulation by any law enforcement. The broker of assessee never indulged in such activities. There was no enquiry from the broker. No defect ... made any independent investigation of facts to connect the assessee or his broker with the transaction of alleged price rigging. So far as allegation of price rigging is concerned, no role or the activities of the brokers of assessee in price manipulation is brought on record. We find that there

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

SEBI dated 05/06/2020 wherein the name of the assessee or his registered share broker was not reflected as defaulters or persons involved in artificial price rigging of shares. Hence the observations and findings recorded by us for A.Y. 2014-15 together with reliance placed on various case laws thereon shall ... 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

Smt Nirakumari Virendra Bajaj, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-17(2)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

action on Kushal group, various incriminating materials were seized. On investigation of the seized materials it is established that Kushal Group was involved in price rigging and providing bogus accommodation entries in the form of bogus Long Term Capital Gain/Loss and Short Term Capital Gain/Loss. The assessee Nira Kumari Virendra ... whether the assessment is needed in this case. The assessee in its reply has stated that he has not indulged in any price rigging or bonus accommodation entries and all transactions are genuine. From the details submitted by the assessee it is not ascertainable that the assessee has not involved

Jayesh Sojpar Karnia HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 30(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

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

Rajendra, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara(Physical Hearing) बनाम Rajendra, Dcit Circle 19(3), Mumbai 317, Prasad Chamber, Opera House, Vs Piramal Chambers, Charni Road, Mumbai – 400004. Lalbaug, Parel, Pan No. Aacpr 4430 M Mumbai-400012. अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी /Respondent ननर्ाारितीकीओिसे /Assessee By Ms. Ruby Srivastava & Shri Bharat Kumar Ar’S िाजस्वकीओिसे /Revenue By Shri Anil Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Institution Of Appeal 03.02.2025 27.02.2025 सुनवाईकीतािीख/Date Of Hearing उद्घोषणाकीतािीख/Date Of 30.04.2025 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

that assessing officer finding are based on his statement recorded during search action, wherein statement of Naresh Jain was recorded about modus operandi of price rigging of various scrips. According to his statement the scheme involved acquiring of listed companies, artificially manipulating their 3 Rajendra (AY 2012-13) share price ... which specific allegation purportedly made against assessee. The AO has not brought any material on record to substantiate the role of assessee in price rigging activities. The assessee has no connection with the management of company in question. Assessment is based solely on an investigation report which content general observation

Shri Narendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee, is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2014-15

account. 11) Copy of scheme for Amalgamation” 16. Admittedly, the authorities below have failed to establish the involvement of the Assessee in manipulation of price rigging and/or controlling the scrip under consideration and/or any involvement with Shri Vipul Vidhur Bhat and/or fraudulent or unfair trade practices. It is also admitted

ITO Ward 3(4), Thane vs. Sunil Kumar Bagaria, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalito, Ward-3(4), Room No.9, B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, ............... Appellant Thane West - 400604

been referred to by the AO which indicates that the assessee was involved or had any minutest link with the manipulative transaction of price rigging. Thus, there is no reference to any portion of sworn statements wherein any adverse observation is made against the assessee. Therefore, we find merits

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Raichand Parasmal Chokshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, 305, Ashirwad Building, Lalabaug 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Vs. Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaapc6486C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1) Raichand Parasmal Chokshi 405, Piramal Chambers, Huf Lalabaug 305, Ashirwad Building, Mumbai 400012 Vs. 10Th Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai 400004. (Pan: Aaahr1005A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Umang Shah, Ca Revenue : Shri R.R. Makwana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 23.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are In The Case Of An Individual & Huf Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- Ay 2017-18 24/1060184522(1) Dated 29.01.2024 For Individual & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1064573907(1), Dated 02.05.2024 For The Huf, Passed Against The Assessment Orders By Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai U/S. 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 29.05.2023 & 21.04.2023, Respectively For Individual & Huf For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Appeal In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Is By The Individual & That In Ita No. 3374/Mum/2024 Is By The Huf With The Present Individual As Its Karta. Common Issue Is Involved In Both The Appeals By The Revenue, Raising Identical Grounds Except For Variation In The Quantum Of Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Grounds Taken By The Revenue In The Case Of Individual In Ita No. 1486/Mum/2024 Are Reproduced As Under:

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 ... impugned transaction cannot be AY 2017-18 sustained. In our considered view, ld. Assessing Officer has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging. 8. We have perused the order of ld. CIT(A) to note elaborate exposition on each of the aspect alleged by ld. Assessing Officer