← All Phrases

“accommodation entry”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 684,509 judgments

RAMESHKUMAR KARSANBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(5), SURAT

Accordingly the estimated addition made of Rs.35,166/-[0.5% of 70,33,182/-] by the AC invoking provision of section 69C of the I.T Act stand deleted. Thus this ground is allowed

ITA 669/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115BSection 250Section 68Section 69C

credit u/s 68 of the Act. Further, an amount of Rs.35,166/- was added u/s 69C towards the commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition ... submitted that the Assessing Officer relied only on 7. general investigation reports without bringing any direct evidence linking the assessee with the alleged accommodation entry operators. The Ld. AR also contended that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided in this case. The Ld. AR further contended that

HIMANSHU DAKSHESHKUMAR KATWALA,KHAMBHAT ANAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), PETLAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 199/AHD/2026[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hardik J Raval & Vivek D Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Girish Parihar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

unsustainable as it is made without any incriminating material, documentary evidence, statement, bank trail or seized material linking the appellant with any alleged accommodation entry. 7. The authorities erred in relying upon alleged third party material without providing such material to the appellant and without granting opportunity of cross examination ... information indicated that the assessee had allegedly entered into transactions amounting to Rs. 29,81,262/- in the nature of accommodation entries or fictitious loans through entities controlled by Shri Jignesh Shah and Shri Sanjay Shah, who were found to be engaged in providing bogus entries during search proceedings conducted

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. SHALIMAR CORP. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3068/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Nihon Impex Pvt Ltd against the assessee, and held Nihon Impex as a shell company from whom the assessee had taken accommodation entry, and added the same u/s 68. 27. When the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) took cognizance of the documents

SHALIMAR CORP LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Nihon Impex Pvt Ltd against the assessee, and held Nihon Impex as a shell company from whom the assessee had taken accommodation entry, and added the same u/s 68. 27. When the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) took cognizance of the documents

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

there may not be any direct evidence in the hands of the Revenue to establish that the investment made in such companies was an accommodation entry. Thus the Court should take the aspect of human probabilities into consideration that no prudent investor would invest in penny scrips. Considering the fact ... basis of cogent material, does not justify his con-clusion that the transaction is bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent's unaccounted money

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

LTCG arising out of the sale of scrips of M/s HPC Biosciences Ltd. based on investigation carried out by Directorate of Investigation, Kolkatta on accommodation entry of LTCG and identified beneficiaries who have taken bogus entry of LTCG. The findings given by Hon'ble ITAT Delhi, based upon the judgment ... there may not be any direct evidence in the hands of the Revenue to establish that the investment made in such companies was an accommodation entry. Thus the Court should take the aspect of human probabilities into consideration that no prudent investor would invest in penny scrips. Considering the fact

JAYESHKUMAR KAILASHCHANDRA BHADADA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2318/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 148A

brief facts of the case are that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee had taken accommodation entry in the form of bogus transactions carried out with Jayeshkumar Kailashchandra Bhadada Vs. ITO, AY- 2018-19 2 M/s. Bright Corporation, Ahmedabad. A notice

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8819/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Officer ignoring the fact that the assessee has made bogus purchases from M/s R.K. Impex (Prop: Manish Kapadia HUF) which was engaged in providing accommodation entries. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting ... claim. It is observed that the Ld. AO has reopened the assessee’s case based on some information that the assessee has availed accommodation entry by way of bogus purchases from M/s. R.K. Impex where the modus operandi was that the purchases will be made by cheque and later cash

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8818/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Officer ignoring the fact that the assessee has made bogus purchases from M/s R.K. Impex (Prop: Manish Kapadia HUF) which was engaged in providing accommodation entries. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting ... claim. It is observed that the Ld. AO has reopened the assessee’s case based on some information that the assessee has availed accommodation entry by way of bogus purchases from M/s. R.K. Impex where the modus operandi was that the purchases will be made by cheque and later cash

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. RAJAT SUREKA, INDORE

The appeal is allowed

ITA 426/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Dcit 4(1), Rajat Sureka, Indore D-41, Hig Colony, बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aksps7189J Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Rajat Sureka ITA No. 426/Ind/2025 – AY 2014-15 by Shri Sharad Darak wherein it was established that the same was indulged in providing accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loan. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred ... finding of the AO that the company M/s Jayant Security and Finance Pvt. Ltd is established to be a shell company which provided accommodation entry after charging commission.” 2. The background facts leading to present appeal are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

finding on the\nveracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to\nbe accommodation entry providers engaged in providing bogus\npurchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular\naccommodation entry provider. Pertinently, we also find no\nobservation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7843/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

finding on the\nveracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to\nbe accommodation entry providers engaged in providing bogus\npurchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular\naccommodation entry provider. Pertinently, we also find no\nobservation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course of Section 132 search dated 20th September, 2023. We next notice that the learned Assessing ... been found. Sales are accepted. Gross profit ratio is consistent with past years. Such a structured documentary trail is inconsistent with the theory of accommodation entries. 7 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others III. Absence of Cash With III. Absence of Cash Withdrawal III. Absence of Cash With III. Absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

finding on the\nveracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to\nbe accommodation entry providers engaged in providing bogus\npurchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular\naccommodation entry provider. Pertinently, we also find no\nobservation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course of Section 132 search dated 20th September, 2023. We next notice that the learned Assessing ... been found. Sales are accepted. Gross profit ratio is consistent with past years. Such a structured documentary trail is inconsistent with the theory of accommodation entries. 7 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others III. Absence of Cash With III. Absence of Cash Withdrawal III. Absence of Cash With III. Absence

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7839/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

finding on the\nveracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to\nbe accommodation entry providers engaged in providing bogus\npurchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular\naccommodation entry provider. Pertinently, we also find no\nobservation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

finding on the\nveracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to\nbe accommodation entry providers engaged in providing bogus\npurchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular\naccommodation entry provider. Pertinently, we also find no\nobservation

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

entire purchases of `8,86,36,574/- under Section 37(1) of the Act thereby treating the same as bogus ones i.e., mere accommodation entries going by its authorized persons’ statements recorded in the course of Section 132 search dated 20th September, 2023. We next notice that the learned Assessing ... been found. Sales are accepted. Gross profit ratio is consistent with past years. Such a structured documentary trail is inconsistent with the theory of accommodation entries. 7 ITA-5515/Del/2025 & 13 others III. Absence of Cash With III. Absence of Cash Withdrawal III. Absence of Cash With III. Absence

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

finding on the\nveracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to\nbe accommodation entry providers engaged in providing bogus\npurchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular\naccommodation entry provider. Pertinently, we also find no\nobservation

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-05, DELHI

ITA 5519/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

finding on the\nveracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the\nassessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to\nbe accommodation entry providers engaged in providing bogus\npurchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular\naccommodation entry provider. Pertinently, we also find no\nobservation

Showing 1–20 of 4,509 · Page 1 of 226

...