accommodation entry — 4,509 case laws

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1689/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1688 & 1689/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) बनाम/ Shah Mahendrakumar Income Tax Officer Mafatlal Huf Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 27D, Maharashtra Society, Ahmedabad Anmol Mithkhali Owners Asso Mithkhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaihs8263H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. Dr 16/12/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

basis of information received from the Investigation Wing reflected on Insight Portal of the Department that the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs.47,41,600/- during the year in the form of fictitious loan from one Shri Jignesh Shah. In the course of assessment, the assessee had denied having ... however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and the alleged loan of Rs.47,41,600/- taken from Shri Jignesh Shah was held accommodation entry and added to the income. The assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 at total income of Rs.61

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2025[ 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1688 & 1689/Ahd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16) बनाम/ Shah Mahendrakumar Income Tax Officer Mafatlal Huf Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. 27D, Maharashtra Society, Ahmedabad Anmol Mithkhali Owners Asso Mithkhali, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaihs8263H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Sulabh Padshah, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. Dr 16/12/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 06/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

basis of information received from the Investigation Wing reflected on Insight Portal of the Department that the assessee had taken accommodation entry of Rs.47,41,600/- during the year in the form of fictitious loan from one Shri Jignesh Shah. In the course of assessment, the assessee had denied having ... however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and the alleged loan of Rs.47,41,600/- taken from Shri Jignesh Shah was held accommodation entry and added to the income. The assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 at total income of Rs.61

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3986/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3969/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3968/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3967/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 3966/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

Nilesh Premjibhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 3851/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, ()

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68

sale of scrip Blazon Marbles Ltd. However in the course of assessment proceedings the AO was of the view that assessee had received accommodation entries in long term capital gain in scrip of Balzon Marbles Ltd on account of the fact that Kolkata investigating wing Directorate had under taken detailed ... investigation into 84 penny stocks including Blazon Marbles Ltd which suggested that various persons including the assessee had obtained accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain. It was observed by the AO that the face value of the share was Rs. 10/- in September 2011 and price

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2910/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2909/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2908/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the revenue is dismissed, for Assessment Year 2013-14

ITA 2907/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 1Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and that by the

ITA 2906/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Snehal Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 132

sufficient evidence, including statements recorded during the search operation, and corroborative material, which clearly established that the assessee company was involved in providing accommodation entries and the transactions recorded were not genuine. 3.On facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding ... additional income from 7% to 0.5% of the turnover when the facts and circumstances clearly indicate that the assessee, being involved in high- risk accommodation entry activities, earned additional commission income at a higher rate of 7%, which was rightly estimated by the AO. 5.On facts and circumstances

S Chandra Prakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2815/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2815/Chny/2025 & Sa No.105/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 S.Chandra Prakash, No.13/5, Vritti Apartment, 2A, Ormes Road, 3Rd Cross Street, Kilpauk S.O, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. Ito, Vs. Central Circle – 3(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaapc-4541-Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Ам: This Appeal & Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Chennai - 20 (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 08.08.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Against The Order Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai, U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69

paper book submitted before the AO and that of the Id.CIT(A) had proved this point and hence, it cannot be an accommodation entry as alleged by the revenue. 60. It was further stated that when the letter was provided on 30.03.2021, nothing prevented the ADIT(Inv.) and the ACIT

A.C.I.T. CC -3(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 3988/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Jm & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Am Acit, Cc-3(1), M/S. Everest Food Products Pvt. R.No.402, Kautilya Bhawan, Ltd., G Block, Bkc, Bandra East, Krushal Commercial Complex, Vs. Mumbai – 400051 G.M. Road, Tilak Nagar S.O., Chembur Mumbai – 400 089 Pan: Aafce8947A (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

appellant is making these payments are tax compliant. It is also to be noted that none of these parties are admitted or identified accommodation entry providers. Further the appellant has demonstrated by way of income tax portal screen shot that out of the 4 parties identified ... finding on the veracity of the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee nor has she stated that these parties are alleged to be accommodation entry 7 M/s. Everest Food Products Pvt. Ltd providers engaged in providing bogus purchase bills which is the modus operandi of a regular accommodation entry provider

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Yardley Investment and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4725/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year : 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Room No.653, 6Th Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ……………. Appellant Mumbai – 400020 V/S Yardley Investment & Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. 1, Pearl Mansion N, 91, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 ……………. Respondent Pan: Aaacy0327M

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 68

found credited in the books of accounts of the assessee during the year under consideration as unsecured loans are nothing but accommodation entries. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee despite ... fact that assessee could not prove the entire chain of flow of funds which involved complex layering such that accommodation entries were passed through a structured mechanism using paper companies to channel funds and inflate turnover as demonstrated in the assessment order." 3. While the assessee has raised the following

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Bans Aerosol Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 7127/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.7127/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, R.No 317, 3Rd Floor, Ara Centre, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Jhandewalan Extn. Delhi 110055 बिाम Vs. Bans Aerosol P. Ltd., 3/110, Lalita Park, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Pan: Aaccb-1901-C अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate (Through Vc) सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 07.07.2025, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 7 Days. The Revenue Has Filed An Application Citing Reasons For Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Application Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Considering The Explanation Furnished By The Department, Delay Of 7 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Taken Up For Adjudication On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate (Through VC)

Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

assessee. 4. Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently defending the Assessment Order submitted that the Investigation Wing had unearthed a well- organized accommodation entry racket. M/s Sirsa Deposits and Advances Pvt. Ltd. 3 is one such shell entity lacking creditworthiness and engaged in providing bogus entries. Therefore, the additions ... assessee held that the loan taken by the assessee from M/s Sirsa Deposits and Advances Pvt. Ltd. is non genuine and is merely an accommodation entry. The CIT(A) after examining the aforesaid document concluded that the loan transaction was genuine and the assessee has discharged his onus in establishing

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5721/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

hands of the assessee as well as in the hands of two other companies in spite of the assessee being a moderator/facilitator of accommodation entries, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter shall be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. 14. We find some ... assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and that only commission income should be considered as his income also has not been considered by the lower authorities. Considering the totality

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5720/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

hands of the assessee as well as in the hands of two other companies in spite of the assessee being a moderator/facilitator of accommodation entries, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter shall be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. 14. We find some ... assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and that only commission income should be considered as his income also has not been considered by the lower authorities. Considering the totality

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Accordingly. Hence, the AO is directed to restrict the additions only to the income on account of commission @0.50% as mentioned in the table above. These grounds may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 5719/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 1Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

hands of the assessee as well as in the hands of two other companies in spite of the assessee being a moderator/facilitator of accommodation entries, therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter shall be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment. 14. We find some ... assessee during the course of search in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act that he was a moderator or facilitator of accommodation entries and that only commission income should be considered as his income also has not been considered by the lower authorities. Considering the totality

“accommodation entry”

Leading authorities on accommodation entry

Judgments citing accommodation entry

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

Shah Mahendrakumar Mafatlal (HUF), Mithkhali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Subhkaran & Sons, Mumbai

Nilesh Premjibhai Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO-32(2)(4), Mumbai

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

Subhkaran and Sons, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

S Chandra Prakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

A.C.I.T. CC -3(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

DCIT Central Circle- 7(1), Mumbai vs. Yardley Investment and Trading Company Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Bans Aerosol Private Limited, Delhi

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Sh. Radhey Shyam Bansal, New Delhi