“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

DCIT, CC-2(3), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2590/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), Maxcab Industries Pvt. Ltd. 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, 67/C, Balaram Dey Street, E.M. Bypass, Vs. West Bengal-700006 West Bengal-700107 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aancm1997Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Ms. Nandini Surekh, Shri Pranabesh Sarkar, Ars Revenue By : Praveen Kishore, Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Praveen Kishore, DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 68

Paragraph 4.1 of the assessment order. Thereafter, the learned AO discussed the incriminating material and came to the conclusion that assessee has taken accommodation entries. The ld. AO also extracted the statement of Shri Arun Nangalia and Shri Jivendra Mishra Kothari. The ld AO came to the conclusion that ... transmissions. The learned AO observed on examination of the Excel file in the laptop of Navin Kumar Saffar that assessee had taken accommodation entries in the form of loans. The learned AO also noted that the notices issued under Section 133(6) of the Act could not be served

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2220/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessing Officer issued reopening notice on ground that assessee had received accommodation entry of bogus LTCG from trading in penny scrip -Tribunal quashed assessment order on ground that Assessing Officer had acted on borrowed satisfaction without recording ... satisfaction - It was noted that Assessing Officer had taken note of ITBA data which revealed that assessee had received accommodation entry from trading in penny scrip during relevant year Furthermore, he had also pointed out that assessee had not submitted any documentary evidence regarding alleged transactions Whether since Tribunal failed

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata vs. Somani Services Private Limited, Kolkata

ITA 2219/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250

Hitesh Shashikant Jhaveri, Borivali West vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4344/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhri & Hitesh Shashikantjhaveri Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of A/304, Alanknanda Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1) Building, 51St Tps Road, C41-43, G Block Bkc, Near Veer Sawarkar Garden, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Borivali (West), Complex, Bandra(East), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Adepj1181A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri RaghunathSarangapaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

alleged penny stock transactions and had in fact earned a nominal gain of only Rs. 1,301/-, thereby negating the allegation of accommodation entry or tax evasion. 6. That the learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer without ... completed on 13.03.2015 at the returned loss. Reassessment proceedings were subsequently initiated on 28.03.2019 after receipt of information from the Investigation wing regarding accommodation entries taken by the assessee from purchase and sale of shares of a penny stock company viz. M/s. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. Ld. AO disallowed the loss

Hitesh Shashikant Jhaveri, Borivali West vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 42(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri RaghunathSarangapaniFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

Suresh Auto Deal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disallowed

ITA 4067/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrisuresh Auto Deal Vs. Income-Tax Officer Plot No. A-129, Opp Ward 3(1), Kalyan Auditorium, Midc, 421301. Dombivali-421201. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abdfs7872A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

order. Further, in the backdrop of information received from CGST authorities regarding the supplier M/s. Advance Computers and Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. being an accommodation entry provider, the ld. AO was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee and making the impugned addition. 6. We have heard the rival ... relied upon the report received from CGST authorities to hold that the impugned transaction was bogus as the supplier was found to be an accommodation entry provider by the GST department. 6.3 After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the assessee

DCIT(Central Circle)-3(3), Mumbai vs. Juicy International Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Avaada Ventures Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai

ITA 4388/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 250

companies and their Directors in para 4.1 and 4.2 of the assessment order and observed that the said companies have been approved as accommodation entry companies by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. During the course of search operation u/sec. 132, statements of the Directors of the some companies were recorded ... oath, in which they have admitted that there are having no business activities and they providing only accommodation entries. 10. The AO, though acknowledged the fact that Mr. Vikash Agarwal (Director of M/s. Luxury Vinimay Pvt. Ltd.) during the course of statement recorded u/sec. 131, has provided the details

D M Jewellers, Guwahati vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, Guwahati

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

ITA 107/GTY/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT

Section 10(26)Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

account, and therefore, invoking section 68 in respect of trade purchases is erroneous. Merely, because the supplier was alleged to be involved in accommodation entries, it was incorrectly presumed that the appellant’s transactions were also of the same nature. The authorities have relied on surmises and conjecture rather than ... conducted in the case of Shri Puneet Kulthia and during the investigation it was found that Shri Puneet Kulthia was involved in providing accommodation entry to various persons / entities, helping them to channelize their unaccounted money back into their businesss to raise the capital through bogus sale or income. During

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jaipur

47. As a result, ITA No

ITA 722/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, Ld. C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 150Section 153CSection 250

Income from Other sources, for the reasons recorded by him; (ii) of Rs. 89,367/-Relating to Commission paid for acquisition of an accommodation entry, as discussed in the order; (iii) of Rs. 1,45,78,885/-the sum of on-money paid in connection with transaction of purchase ... Yamini Investment Company Ltd., it was revealed that shares of the said company had been rigged in an synchronized way to provide accommodation entries of bogus long term capital gain to various beneficiaries, including the assessee. 30. The assessee was found to have claimed exempt income on account of LTCG

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kalawati Sharma, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalincome Tax Officer, Jaipur ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. P. C. Parwal, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 250Section 69C

justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1, 90,235/-made by AO on account of commission paid for acquiring accommodation entry ignoring that such type of synchronized trading is violative of transparent norms of trading in securities? 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return ... places throughout the country. During the searches & as per the information made public by the SEBI, it is discovered that various syndicates have arranged accommodation entry of bogus LTCG, bogus STCG, bogus long/ short term capital loss through trading of shares of penny stocks. The modus operandi found is that

Girish Vrajlal Soni, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Kirit B. Soni, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69A

required legitimate evidences of sales transaction with Viko Enterprise and not finding any incriminate documents against the assessees, the transaction is treated as accommodation entry. Just relying on the basis of information received from Director of Income Tax (Investigation) and Director of Intelligence & Criminal Investigation. 4. The decision provided ... VIKO ENTERPRISE, Stock Statement to the Assessment Unit. However, based on Enquiry by investigation wing, Ahmedabad with VIKO Enterprise, The transaction is treated as accommodation Entry by the assessment wing. No Incriminate document from VIKO enterprise against Soni Girishkumar Vrajlal was found by the Investigation Wing.Thus, in spite of providing

ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai vs. Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Legal Heir- Smt. Lalitha Bhandari, Chennai

ITA 2785/CHNY/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2785/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Asst. Commissioner Of Late Shri Mahaveer Bhandari, Income Tax, Rep. By Legal Heir Smt. Lalitha Non-Corporate Circle 7(1), Vs. Bhandari, Chennai. 9, Athipattan Street, Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002. Pan: Aadpb 877A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl.Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, Ca (Through Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri Ajith Kumar Chordia, CA

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 56(2)(vii)

Shri Rahul Jhunjhunwala and Shri Satish Saraf were recorded. In these statements, they have admitted that they were engaged directly or indirectly in providing accommodation entries in various forms like bogus unsecured loans, bogus share capital, bogus sales and purchase etc. and charged commission thereon at the rate ... investigation carried out in the case of Shri Satish Saraf Group, where Shri Rahul Jhunjunwla has admitted that he was indulged in providing accommodation entries to various companies through his paper company M/s. Sunlight Agency Pvt. Ltd. 2.4. The appellant company has claimed commission of Rs.28,03,000/-paid

Wazeera Saleh Mithiborwala, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 35(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 484/MUM/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarwazeera Saleh Mithiborwala, 1001/1002 Natura, Tapovan, Co-Op. Housing Society, J.K. Mehta Marg, Santacruz West, Mumbai - 400054 ............... Appellant Pan: Acgpm5141G V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 35(3), ……………… Respondent Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Pursuant to the information received from the Directorate of Investigation that the assessee is a beneficiary of the accommodation entry transaction of bogus long-term capital gains, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 20/09/2016 and proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated. In response

Facts Tradelink Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4410/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Facts Tradelink Private Limited Ito - 12(2)(1), Mumbai 206, Ghanshayam Tower, M.G. Road, Vs Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400066. Mumbai – 400020. [Pan: Aaacf7985Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 2Section 254(1)

reopened on the basis of information received through insight portal that Naresh Jain and his associates were involved in providing bogus accommodation entry of long term capital gain / losses in various scripts to beneficiaries across the country. A search action was carried out in case of Naresh Jain wherein voluminous ... made through account payee cheque. The assessee by referring the contents of show cause notice submitted that allegation of assessing officer that assessee obtained accommodation entry, is baseless and without any supporting evidence. The 3 Facts Tradelink Private Limited assessee in fact is trader in shares and declared income from

Samir N Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4393/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Prabhash Shankarsamir N. Shah, A/35, Jeevan Villa Chs Narayan, Dabholkar Road, Nepean Road, Malabar Hill, Mumbai - 400006 ............... Appellant Pan: Aazps9084M V/S Income Tax Officer – 19(3), Piramal Chamber, Lower Parel, ……………… Respondent Mumbai - 400012

For Appellant: Shri V.P. Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Rs.23,39,510/-. On the basis of the information received from the office of DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai, the assessee is a beneficiary of accommodation entry transaction of bogus purchases from 3 entities which are controlled by Bhanwar Lal Jain and Group, show cause notice was issued to the assessee regarding

Hiteshi Leasing and Housing Pvt Ltd, New Delho vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Faridabad

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

ITA 4620/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarhiteshi Leasing & Housing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 1, Yogi Associates, Faridabad. E – 335, East Of Kailash, New Delhi – 110 005. (Pan : Aaach8298J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pushpdeep Singh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Order : 15.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon-3 [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 04.081.2024 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(A) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A), While Passing The Order Erred In: A. Passing The Assessment Order Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 153A Despite The Fact The Assessee Was Not Searched & The Assessee Was Issued Notice Under Section 153C On 29.1 1.2013. This Is A Jurisdictional Error

For Appellant: Shri Pushpdeep Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Dan Ratnoo, CIT DR

Section 131Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

that one of the director of Shalini Holdings Limited is a relative of S.K. Jain who was allegedly engaged in the activities of providing accommodation entries whereas no paper was seized during the course of search operation and also on post search investigations made by the investigating officer as well ... enquiries made by learned Assessing Officer, which suggests that share capital received by the Appellant company is accommodation entry. e. Making these additions on the basis that the Directors of share applicant companies have failed to provide documentary evidence to prove the sources of funds during recording of statement

Sameer Shah (HUF), 1 "Swapneel", Opp. Gurudatatrey Temple Palace Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jamnagar, Gujarat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 248/RJT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250

every gain earned by any genuine investor will be within this scope and every gain earned can be termed as non- genuine or an accommodation entry based on the probability. The evidence submitted by the appellant termed as colorable evidence is without verifying the genuineness and veracity of the evidence

Nishant Parekh- Legal Heir of Mina Parekh, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 215/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 68

shares of M/s. Kailash Auto in his Demat account. Assessing officer had treated the transaction of sale of shares as bogus being accommodation entry but had not doubted holding of shares by assessee to the tune of 4,13,500 shares in the Demat account of the assessee. Once ... bogus merely on the basis of investigation carried out by department in some other cases where some persons were found indulged in providing accommodation entry. Assessing officer in the entire assessment order had not referred to single documentary evidence which could be said to be incriminating material against the assessee

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

bogus long term capital gain. The Ld. AR further drew our attention to the reasons where the AO observed that assesse has obtained bogus accommodation entries in the forms of penny stock by M/% Indian Infotech and Software Limited during the financial year ... Y.2013- 14 which is given as under: "The assessee Shobhit Goel HUF is one of the beneficiary who had obtained bogus accommodation entry in the form of penny stock of MA Indian Infotech & software Limited (INDINFO) during the financial year 2012-13. Upon analysis of the findings in this matter

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Sapna Karnani, Tonk Phatak

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 712/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT, DR

Section 127Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

deleting the addition of Rs.78,50,000/- made u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credits 1 disregarding the fact that it was an accommodation entry in the nature of bogus unsecured loan obtained from Kolkata based companies which are of no means and thus is nothing but a sham ... deleting the addition of Rs.1,96,250/- made by the AO u/s 69C on account of unexplained expenditure i.e. commission expenses incurred for acquiring accommodation entry. Ground 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition