“accommodation entry”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 684,509 judgments

The decision most relied on for accommodation entry is Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801), cited in 1,967 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on accommodation entry

Sumati Dayal v. CIT

214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court

1,967

citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO

154 ITR 148 · 1985 · Supreme Court

741

citing judgments

The Supreme Court held that while legitimate tax planning is permissible, transactions structured as a "colourable device" or "subterfuge" solely to avoid tax are impermissible. It mandates a judicial shift to look beyond the form to the substance of a transaction, allowing the lifting of the corporate veil in tax evasion arrangements.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court

712

citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.

103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court

696

citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd.

342 ITR 169 · 2012 · High Court

658

citing judgments

To make an addition under Section 68 for unexplained cash credits, the Assessing Officer must conduct proper inquiry into the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor, especially concerning share application money. The assessee's initial discharge of burden by providing necessary details shifts the onus back to the AO for further investigation, including the source of source.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court

391

citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.

396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court

272

citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

N.K. Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT

84 Taxmann.com 195 · 2017 · Supreme Court

204

citing judgments

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and based on fictitious invoices from non-existent or unconfirmed suppliers, the entire amount of such purchases is liable to be added back as unexplained expenditure, not merely a percentage thereof.

Judgments citing accommodation entry

Raghav Petrochem Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3437/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2012-13 Raghav Petrochem Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward 20(3), Delhi. Delhi. Pan Aaacr4540H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nirbhay Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

sustaining addition of Rs. 7,94,27,009/- made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the appellant company has taken accommodation entries and treating the entire purchases made from Reema Polychem Pvt Ltd (Rs. 7,30,11677) and Reema Polychem (Rs. 64,15,332) as bogus based on information ... from DDIT (Investigation), New Delhi, vide letter dated 25.03.2019 that two concerns namely, M/s Reema Polychem Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Reema Polychem were providing accommodation entry by issue of bogus purchase bills and the assessee was one of the beneficiary who had taken accommodation entry

M/S. Indovision Securities Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1353/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1353/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Indovision Securities Ltd….…………............…...……………....Appellant Block B, Suit No.1A, 1St Floor Mangalam, 24 & 26 Hemanta Basu Sarani, Isi P.O S.O, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaaci5310G] Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Kolkata….….............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 27, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 11, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Time-Barred By 196 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed. Considering The Averments Made In The Application, The Delay In Filing The Present Appeal Is Hereby Condoned. 3. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deciding The Appeal Ex-Parte When No Proper & Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted.

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

received by the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing that the assessee was a beneficiary of Rs.4,70,50,000/- received by it through accommodation entry. The Assessing Officer therefore reopened the assessment of the assessee and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act 27.03.2019 and thereafter the ex parte ... which were transferred for layering purpose to other entities and finally to the beneficiaries. It was observed that the entities were engaged in providing accommodation entry. In this way, the beneficiary companies have brought back their unaccounted income into their regular books of accounts. The account of assessee company

Lalwani Estates and Realtors Pvt Ltd, Manhar Villa, Anthony Road vs. ITO, 10 (2) (2), Aayekar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3370/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

reopened under section 147 of the Act on the basis of the information received from the office of DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai with respect to accommodation entry received by the assessee during the year under consideration from various concerns operated by Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain Group. Notices under section ... Javda India Impex Ltd., and Duke Business Pvt Ltd., were to be companies controlled by Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain and indulged in providing accommodation entries. Above said three companies have paid share application money to the assessee %.10,00,000/- each during the current assessment year. Subsequently, further notices under

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Ravindra G Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2565/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer - Vs. Ravindra G. Chitalia, 42(1)(4), A/604, Saileela, Above Room No. 718, Kautilya Vijaya Bank, Anand Bhavan, Bkc, Nagar, Dahisar (East) Mumbai – 400051 Maharashtra – 400068 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepc4939Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : S. Arunkumar Respondent By : Debiz Bhusal Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This E-Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) For A.Y. 2010-191. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Giving Partial Relief To The Assessee By Reducing The Addition / Disallowance To 5% Of The Impugned Non-Genuine / Bogus Purchases As Against The Addition / Disallowance @12.5% Made By The Assessing Officer By Relying On. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Reducing The Disallowance @ 5% Of The Impugned Bogus Purchases By Relying On The Judgment Dated 06 02 2019 Of The Jurisdictional Itat In The Case Of The This Assessee For The A.Y 2009- 10 Which Was Not Accepted By The Revenue & Further Appeal Was Filed It Is Submitted In This Regard That In The Said Itat Judgment On Identical Facts It Was Held By Hon'Ble Tribunal That Disallowance @12.5% Was At Higher Rale Going By The Nature Of Business Of The Assessee (Trading In Various Products Of Iron & Steel) & Also For The Reason That The Assessee Has Also Paid Vat Element On The Impugned Bogus Purchases Without

For Appellant: S. ArunkumarFor Respondent: Debiz Bhusal

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

received from the sale tax department through DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai that some parties had indulged in the acceptance of bogus purchase bills from the accommodation entry providers. As per the information received the assessee was beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills and during the financial year relevant to assessment year

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Stonex India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

fact that the director of the company Sh. Gaurav Agarwal has accepted in his statement recorded during search operation that it is merely an accommodation entry and the cash was given to Sunmoon Vision Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd in lieu of RTGS.” I.T.A. No.1784/Del/2022 2 3. Briefly stated the assessee ... assessee considered that loan taken by the assessee from lender M/s. Sunmoon Vision Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘Sunmoon’ in short) to be an accommodation entry. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that against such additions, no evidence / material has been placed on record by the AO except

Prahlad Dutt Lata, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-35(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 265/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 265/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Prahlad Dutt Lata Income Tax Officer, Ward – Vs 35(1), Kolkata Urvashi Apartment 3, Hunger Ford Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaxpl1559J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 13/08/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 86 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit & The Reason For The Said Delay Is Mainly On Account Of Old Age Of The Assessee & The Delay On The Part Of The Person Who Received The Envelope Sent From The Office Of The Ld. Cit(A) Which Was Required To Be Handed Over To The Assessee. On Perusal Of The Affidavit, We Are Convinced That The Assessee Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R

Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 234BSection 250

which is part of the 84 companies detected by the SEBI were found to be part of a racket of the entry operators providing accommodation entries. The ld. CIT(A) based on the settled judicial precedents and also based on the various decisions as referred in the impugned order ... para 6 to 10 came to the conclusion that the assessee has merely taken accommodation entries in the form of capital gain and the sale consideration of Rs.33,00,000/- has been received from unexplained sources which is liable to be added

Sulochana Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 187/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 144Section 147Section 263

disallowed and (ii) that the AO had credible information that the assessee was benefitted by an amount of Rs. 16 Lakh by way of accommodation entries. Ld. Pr. CIT noted that the assessee has failed to comply with the statutory notices/show cause notices to the assessee by the AO during ... rate of 1.50% on the gross credits of Rs. 6,26,20,000/- as the assessee is engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. In defence of argument the Ld. A.R. relied on the decision of Co- Page 3 of 8 I.T.A. No.: 187/KOL/2021 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sulochana

Truevalue Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Circle 1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3756/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Dy. Cit Truevalue Projects Private Circle 1(3)(2) Limited Aaykar Bhavan Office No.Ii-B, Mezzanine Floor, Vs. 289 Emca House, S.B.S Road, Maharshi Karve Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct5333Q Assessee By : Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.D. Chougule, Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.02.2024

For Appellant: Ms. Rekha Pandey, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

return was picked up for scrutiny. Subsequently, information was received from DCIT, Central Circle 3(1), Kolkata, in respect of receipt of bogus accommodation entries by the assessee from a shell company, M/s Natural Housing Private Limited. This information was received during the search operation under Section ... Therefore, the argument of non-availment of opportunity for cross-examination is devoid of any merit. He further submitted that assessee has taken bogus accommodation entry from Mr. Pravin Agarwal and himself has stated that it is an accommodation entry. Further, the assessee has not produced any of the evidences

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3745/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

facts & circumstance of the case the learned F Income Tax Officer erred in adding Rs. 500,000/- being amount received as alleged accommodation entries u / s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas no loan or any other kind of transaction in books of account in the year under ... entities on 05.02.2016. During the search M/s. Vipul Vidhur Bhatt has got recorded the statement that he is an entry operator and provided various accommodation entries to the numerous beneficiaries and one such accommodation entry was given to the assessee company of Rs.5,00,000/- in the name

Nirwan Monetary Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3744/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Maheshwari, A.RFor Respondent: Shri S. Arunkumar, D.R

Section 143(3)

Income Tax Officer-27(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Chandrakant Jasani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2648/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer-27(1)(1) V. Bharat Chandrakant Jasan R.No. 406, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 A 402, Sai Darshan, Garden Lane Vashi Railway Station Complex Sanghani Estate, Ghatkopar (E) Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Afcpj7029K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Shashank Mehta Department Represented By Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

processed u/s.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”). Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai about the accommodation entries provided by various dealers and assessee was also one of the beneficiary from those dealers. The assessment was reopened ... based on the information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from various dealers who are said to be providing accommodation entries without there being transportation of any goods. 3. In the reassessment proceedings, the assessee was required to prove the genuineness of the purchases

Income Tax Officer- 42(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhavik Jayant Gandhi, Kandivali(W), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2639/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

Rs.69,20,152/- thereby allowing relief of Rs.61,94,144/- when the purchase from such party was acknowledged to be an accommodation entry. 4. The CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs.1,45,32,138/- which was made to the net profit by rejecting the books of accounts ... transaction recorded in the books are partly accommodation entry which challenged the reliability of the entries/ transactions recorded in the books of accounts leading AO to estimate the total turnover at Rs. 14.50 crore as against declared turnover of Rs. 13.34 crore and profit

Addl.CIT, Special Range-18, New Delhi vs. Jagananth Hemchand Jain, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7754/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

Tina Atul Godhwani, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3628/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3628/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Tina Atul Godhwani बिधम/ Ito-25(1)(5) 165, 5-B, Sanjay Building Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mittal Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400051. Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri- East, Mumbai- 400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aezpt4607D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 22.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.7 Lakhs Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Disallowance Of Interest To The Tune Of Rs.13,118/- & Addition Of Notional Commission Of Rs.14,000/- (Total Rs.7,27,118/-).

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare

Section 147Section 68Section 69C

declaring total income of Rs.4,75,297/-. Subsequently, based on information from the Directorate of Investigation (Inv.), Mumbai regarding beneficiaries of “Accommodation entries provided by Shri 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Tina Atul Godhwani Praveen Kumar Jain”, the AO re-opened the assessment of the assessee. According ... Investigation Wing of the Department conducted search and survey action on Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and his group wherein, he admitted of providing accommodation entries, in the form of bogus capital, bogus share premium, bogus loan, bogus sales etc. The AO noted that Shri Praveen Kumar Jain used to control

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

appreciate that the assessee-appellant has not been named by any of the persons referred to by the Ld. AO for indulging in accommodation entries and the evidences therefore, cannot be used against the assessee in view of the judgment in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT, Bombay City ... basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. The information was specific that the assessee is a beneficiary of taking accommodation entries of Rs. 80,00,000/- in the garb of share application money from entry providers namely Shri Surendra Kumar Jain group identified by Investigation Wing

Hansika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 766/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Learned CIT(A) went wrong in confirming the addition of Rs. 236705/- made by AO u/s 69C on account of commission paid for acquiring accommodation entry of shares which is based on assumption and presumption. 5. That the Learned CIT(A) went wrong in not giving the opportunity of cross ... genuine and added as income the ld. AO also added a sum of Rs. 2,36,705/- being the commission paid for acquiring the accommodation entry of Bogus Long term capital gain. 3 Hansika Jain vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment the assessee has filed

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Smaru Gems, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2495/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

search proceeding in the case of Rajendra Jain Group, it was held that the parties declared as hawala traders were involved in providing accommodation entry of purchases and the assessee was one of the beneficiary of accepting accommodation entry for the purchase (iii) "Whether on the facts ... section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entries by way of bogus purchases from the entities, which are controlled by Smaru Gems ITA no.2495/Mum./2023 Rajendra Jain Group, proceedings under section

DCIT, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva., Kolkata vs. M/S. Delight Suppliers Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 285/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.285/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 50C

premises of Mari gold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Sachet Saraf, director of the company was alleged to be engaged in providing accommodation entry of bogus loss in currency derivatives and it was informed by the directorate that Mari Gold Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. is a company registered as a commodity broker

M/S Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 414/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.414/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 Vs. Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata 2, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 5, Kolkata-700013. (Pan: Aacck7579D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar Appeared For Appellant. Shri S. Dutta, Cit, Dr Appeared For Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 20.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 26.02.2024 Order Per Manish Borad: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Kolkata [In Short Ld. “Cit(A)”] Dated 22.01.2019 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Ld. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kolkata. 2. Assessee Has Effectively Raised Four Grounds Of Which Two Relate To Addition U/S. 68 Of The Act On Account Of Unexplained Share Capital & Unsecured Loan, One Relates To Disallowance U/S. 14A Of The Act & Through Ground No. 4 It Has Claimed That The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) U/S. 250 Of The Act Is Not Correct Confirming The Arbitrary Disallowances/Additions.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

regarding unexplained cash credit in the form of share capital/share premium and unsecured loan which the assessee has taken from paper company/ shell company/ accommodation entry provider and Jama Kharchi Companies and assessee failed to explain the nature and source of the same as mandated