Quick Summary
Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi is a SEBI registered Research Analyst carrying INH000007094, registered since May 2019 and based in Nashik, Maharashtra. His site’s current complaint summary shows 11 complaints received and resolved through SEBI SCORES in August 2026. The separate monthly disposal trend table on the same page shows zero complaints for that exact same month. His published complaint history also only begins in July 2024, five years after the registration itself started, leaving the earlier period with no disclosed data at all. Pricing across his four plans stays well under the SEBI fee cap.
Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi holds SEBI Research Analyst registration INH000007094, active since 6 May 2019, based in Nashik, Maharashtra.
The registration is genuine. What does not hold up is the complaint disclosure on his own site, where two tables covering the identical month, August 2026, show two different numbers: 11 complaints on one, zero on the other.
This page works through the registration, that specific contradiction, the wider gaps in the complaint history, the pricing against the SEBI cap, and the marketing language worth a second look.
Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi Review
Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi holds a B.E. in Civil Engineering and a B.Com. degree, and states he has nearly a decade of experience in market analysis and trading.
His research centres on option trading, equity trading, and algorithmic trading strategies, with the site primarily promoting intraday index option buying calls covering Nifty, Bank Nifty, and Midcap Nifty.
He also offers a positional equity trading strategy sold through a separate subscription.
He is listed on his own site as the grievance redressal officer, meaning the person handling a client’s complaint is the same person the complaint is most likely to concern.
For an individual registration, this is common, and it makes a written, dated record of any grievance worth keeping for that reason alone.
None of this establishes wrongdoing, and nothing further on this page does either.
Where a registered analyst’s conduct does cross a line, the formal escalation route is covered in full further down this page.
Is Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi SEBI Registered?
Yes, and the registration is confirmed on SEBI’s own published Research Analyst list.
| Detail | Information |
| Name | Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi |
| SEBI Registration Number | INH000007094 |
| Validity | 6 May 2019, Perpetual |
| Registered Address | F1-13 Nice Sankul, Near ITI Signal, Trimbak Road, Satpur, Nashik, Maharashtra 422007 |
| Correspondence Address | Same as registered address |
| Contact Person | Rajendra Suryawanshi |
What the INH Prefix Permits
The INH prefix marks a Research Analyst.
It permits publishing research and issuing recommendations to a subscriber base.
It does not permit personalised advice built around an individual client’s income, goals or holdings, trade execution, or portfolio management.
Why Does the Same Month Show 11 Complaints on One Table and Zero on Another?
This is the sharpest and most specific finding on this page, and it deserves to be shown exactly as it appears rather than summarised.
The Current Complaint Summary, August 2026
| Source | Pending at End of Last Month | Received | Resolved | Total Pending | Pending Over 3 Months | Avg. Resolution Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Directly from Investors | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| SEBI (SCORES) | 0 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 30 days |
| Other Sources | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Grand Total | 0 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 30 days |
This table is explicitly labelled as covering the month ending August 2026, and it shows 11 complaints received through SCORES and 11 resolved within that single month.
The Monthly Disposal Trend, Same Month
| Month | Carried Forward | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| July 2024 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| October 2024 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| December 2024 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| January 2025 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| February 2025 through July 2026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| August 2026 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grand Total | 0 | 11 | 11 | 0 |
The August 2026 row in this second table shows zero received and zero resolved; for the identical month, the first table shows 11 of each.
What This Mismatch Actually Means
Both tables are published on the same page by the same firm, describing the same calendar month, and they do not agree.
This is not a gap where one table simply has not caught up to the other, since both tables are current as of the same disclosure date.
It is a direct numerical contradiction between two tables meant to describe the identical period.
We are not asserting which figure is accurate.
What can be said plainly is that a prospective client checking the headline summary would see 11 complaints resolved in the most recent month, while the detailed monthly trend on the same page shows none at all for that month, and the site gives no explanation for the difference.
One further detail is worth noting.
The grand totals of both tables agree: 11 received and 11 resolved overall, which means the 11 complaints do exist somewhere in the firm’s history.
They are simply attributed to different months depending on which of the two tables you read.
Why Does the Complaint History Only Start in 2024?
The registration itself dates to 6 May 2019.
The disclosed complaint history, across both the monthly and annual tables, begins only in July 2024, five years later.
Annual Complaint Trend
| Financial Year | Received | Resolved | Pending |
|---|---|---|---|
| FY 2023-24 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FY 2024-25 | 11 | 11 | 0 |
| FY 2025-26 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grand Total | 11 | 11 | 0 |
The annual table itself only reaches back to FY2023-24.
Nothing is shown or explained for the roughly five years between the registration taking effect in 2019 and the disclosure history beginning in 2024.
SEBI’s disclosure framework requires an ongoing complaint record, and a five year gap at the start of that record, with no note explaining it, is a completeness question worth raising directly with the firm rather than assumed to mean nothing happened in that period.
All 11 disclosed complaints, wherever they are ultimately attributed within the site’s own tables, fall inside FY2024-25 and are marked resolved with nothing pending.
On the resolution outcome alone, that is a clean figure, and it is worth crediting as such even while the surrounding presentation raises real questions.
Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi Pricing and the ₹1,51,000 SEBI Fee Cap
This is a simpler picture, and the news here is good.
A Research Analyst may charge a maximum of ₹1,51,000 per annum per family for individual and HUF clients who are not accredited investors.
The Published Price List
| Plan | Monthly | Quarterly | Half Yearly | Yearly |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Banknifty Option | ₹4,500 | ₹13,500 | ₹27,000 | ₹54,000 |
| Nifty Option | ₹4,500 | ₹13,500 | ₹27,000 | ₹54,000 |
| Midcap Option | ₹4,500 | ₹13,500 | ₹27,000 | ₹54,000 |
| Positional Equity Trading Strategy | ₹2,999 | ₹8,997 | ₹17,994 | ₹35,998 |
Every plan’s yearly price sits well under the ceiling, and even the highest monthly rate, ₹4,500, renewed for twelve months, comes to only ₹54,000.
Holding all four plans simultaneously for a full year would total ₹1,97,996, which does cross the ceiling, so the caution that applies elsewhere in this sector still applies here: if you subscribe to more than one plan, add the totals together before assuming you are within the limit.
On any single plan, this pricing is comfortably compliant.
What Marketing Language on the Website Needs a Closer Look?
A handful of phrases across the site lean toward outcome language rather than a plain description of the service.
1. Accuracy Positioned Without Supporting Data
The site states it provides “1 to 3 high-quality intraday calls per day”, with an emphasis on accuracy over quantity.
No win rate, accuracy percentage, or supporting performance record accompanies this claim anywhere in the material reviewed here.
2. Unsupported Growth Claims
Phrases including “Proven Growth” and “trusted financial strategies to help you grow” appear on the site without a published methodology or performance record behind either statement.
3. A Telegram Channel That Is Never Actually Linked
The site states that all trades are shared exclusively through a Telegram Premium Channel, but no link to that official channel appears anywhere on the website.
A prospective subscriber has no way to confirm which channel is genuinely official before paying, which matters specifically because impersonation of registered analysts through cloned Telegram channels is a recognised risk in this sector.
4. An Algorithmic Trading Claim With No Detail Behind It
The About section states the analyst has developed an “algorithm trading strategy,” without describing what the strategy involves or how it operates.
A named but undescribed algorithm is not verifiable from the outside.
None of this amounts to an explicit guarantee of returns in the way SEBI orders have treated direct profit promises.
It is the kind of language a compliance review would ordinarily flag, particularly the accuracy claim, and the missing Telegram link is worth resolving before you pay for a service delivered entirely through a channel you cannot yet verify.
How to File a Complaint Against Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi?
Given the specific contradiction in the complaint tables, a grievance here has firmer, more documentable ground than a dispute over research quality alone.
Start by asking the firm directly, in writing, to reconcile the current month summary against the monthly trend table for August 2026, since the two do not agree.
If you were told the official Telegram channel link before subscribing, keep that message, since it is not published anywhere on the site itself.
Send your grievance to the RA’s email ID, describing what you were told, what you paid, and what you want resolved.
Keep the sent record regardless of what comes back.
If the response is not satisfactory, escalation runs through a specific set of channels, and each one exists for a different stage of the dispute rather than as alternatives to pick from.
1. SEBI SCORES: File your complaint on the SEBI SCORES complaint portal.
2. SMART ODR: Move to structured conciliation through the SMART ODR portal if SCORES does not resolve it.
3. Arbitration: Where conciliation still does not settle it, arbitration in stock exchange proceedings end in a binding, enforceable award.
These channels each serve a different stage of the process, so it helps to know how they connect before you start.
If you want to know the full process in detail, check our guide complaint against SEBI registered research analyst.
Noticed the complaint numbers here don’t add up?
We document the discrepancy directly, request the reconciliation in writing on your behalf, and put the gap on record in a form the analyst has to respond to. Register with us for a free read on your situation.
Disclaimer
This page is based on Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi’s own published material and the SEBI intermediary register, current as of September 2026, and alleges no wrongdoing since no SEBI order stands against him.
Registration details, pricing, and website content can change, so verify everything at source before acting. Treat this page as research, not legal or investment advice.
Conclusion
Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi is a genuinely registered SEBI Research Analyst, INH000007094, active since May 2019, with pricing that sits comfortably under the SEBI fee cap on any single plan.
His complaint disclosure is where the real questions sit.
The current month summary and the monthly trend table disagree on the same month, August 2026, by 11 complaints, and the disclosed history only begins five years after the registration itself started, with no explanation for the gap.
Before subscribing, ask directly for the official Telegram channel link and for a reconciliation of the two complaint tables.
Both are reasonable questions this page cannot answer on its own.
Report. Recover. Stay Fraud Free.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. It is registered to Rajendra Vitthal Suryawanshi from 6 May 2019 and is perpetual. Confirm it directly on the SEBI register rather than relying on the website alone.
The site does not explain the gap. The current month summary shows 11 complaints received and resolved through SCORES that month, while the separate monthly trend table shows zero for the same month, even though both tables' overall totals agree at 11.
No explanation is given on the site. The five year gap between the registration date and the start of the disclosed complaint history is worth raising directly with the firm.
Not on their own. Every plan stays comfortably under ₹1,51,000 annually. Holding all four plans at once would cross the ceiling, so add your totals together if you subscribe to more than one.
It is not linked anywhere on the website despite being described as the exclusive delivery channel for trades. Ask the firm directly for the link and confirm it before paying, given the risk of cloned or impersonated channels in this sector.
Add us as a preferred source on Google »
