TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether back-and-forth trades executed across different days could be treated as reversal trades for the purpose of determining manipulative conduct and unlawful gains. (ii) Whether brokerage and similar transaction expenses were deductible while computing ill-gotten gains and whether the disgorgement figure determined on remand was liable to be confirmed.
Issue (i): Whether back-and-forth trades executed across different days could be treated as reversal trades for the purpose of determining manipulative conduct and unlawful gains.
Analysis: The trading pattern was examined in the context of the remand directions and the existing finding that the noticees had acted as a group in manipulative trading. Reversal trades are not confined to same-day matched transactions; the decisive consideration is whether the trades, viewed as a whole, reflect a manipulative device and a conscious pattern of opposite trades intended to create a false market appearance. On the facts, the back-and-forth trades between the noticees, even when executed across different days, formed part of the same manipulative scheme and answered the description of reversal trades.
Conclusion: The trades were correctly treated as reversal trades, and that finding was sustained against the noticees.
Issue (ii): Whether brokerage and similar transaction expenses were deductible while computing ill-gotten gains and whether the disgorgement figure determined on remand was liable to be confirmed.
Analysis: The computation of unlawful gains was examined by taking the actual purchase and sale prices of the traded shares and by accounting for excess buy or excess sell positions in the manner directed. Brokerage and other trading expenses were treated as costs of committing the fraud and were not allowed as deductions. Only statutory levies such as securities transaction tax and SEBI turnover fee were treated as eligible set-off. On that basis, the recalculated amount of unlawful gains was accepted and the disgorgement direction was affirmed along with interest.
Conclusion: The expense-based challenge failed, and the disgorgement amount was confirmed with the limited statutory deductions allowed.
Final Conclusion: The remand exercise resulted in confirmation of the unlawful gain computation and a joint and several disgorgement direction against the noticees with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: In securities-market manipulation cases, reversal trades may be inferred from the overall pattern of opposite trades even if executed over multiple days, and only statutory levies, not fraud-related trading expenses, may be deducted while computing disgorgement of unlawful gains.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
