9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do multiple trades on the same day. There are a few days when both buy and sell orders of the same quantity were placed. Even on those days when perfect matching is noticed there is nothing on record to show that those trades were entered within a short time interval. In the absence of which, we are constrained to accept the submission of the appellant that being a day trader, on some days, he was placing orders in both the directions with substantive time gap. It is also claimed by the appellant that on some of the days he actually did take delivery and therefore the beneficial ownership also got changed. The impugned order does not indicate the timing of the alleged trades nor it goes into change in beneficial ownership nor does it br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the scrip of Vamshi Rubber Limited ( VRL for short) during the period January 01, 2011 to June 30, 2011. The shares of VRL were traded on 124 days on BSE Limited during this examination period. The impugned order records that the appellant had indulging in wash trades/ self trades on multiple days during the examination period. The total number of shares of VRL bought and sold by the appellant during this period comes to 19727 shares. Trading was in small quantities of shares in the range of 2 shares to 2000 shares on the buy side and 1 to 2016 shares on the sell side during these days. It is also stated in the impugned order that these quantities though appear small, are substantive percentage of the overall volumes in the scrip given ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or wash trades are trades without any change in beneficial ownership and as such when the same entity is indulging in such trades on a repetitive basis it is clearly violation of PFUTP Regulations and hence the penalty imposed on the appellant is just and fair. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the matter of Angel Broking (P.) Ltd. v. SEBI [2013] 40 taxmann.com 343/[2014] 123 SCL 329 (SAT - Mum.) to emphasise that if violation is established penalty must follow. 5. We have gone through the documents produced before us and taken note of the submissions made by both the parties. We note that, on many of the days the appellant has bought and sold the shares and on some of those day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
