“accommodation entry”

Prakash R Mehta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -19(2)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Subsequently, an information was received from the DGIT (INV) wing Mumbai about the assessee having availed benefit of taking accommodation entries of unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 1,25,00,000/-. The reasons were recorded and notice u/s. 148 was issued to the assessee on 25/03/2019. In response ... authorities with the remark “left”. Based on the details furnished by the assessee. The Ld.AO was of opinion that assessee was indulged in obtaining accommodation entries from the parties who are paper companies and managed by the concerns operated by Gautam Jain and Group. The Ld. AO thus after noting

Jay Ganga Exim India Pvt.Ltd., Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-13(1), Kolkata

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

only four subscribers, which proves that the AO has mostly relied upon the report given by the Investigation wing in respect of alleged accommodation entry providers. 9. Be that as it may, we notice all the 35 share subscribers are private limited companies only. The Ld A.R submitted that ... appears that the AO was mainly guided by the report of the investigation wing with regard to the paper companies providing accommodation entries. The question that arises is whether the Assessing Officer could have made addition under section 68 of the Act by relying upon report of investigation wing

Sahifa Asif Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO - Ward 31(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

under Section 69 of the Act and (b) addition of INR.73,225/- holding the same to be commission paid for obtaining bogus accommodation entry. 4. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed vide ex-parte order, dated 07/11/2023. 5. Now the Assessee had preferred

DCIT, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai vs. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

bogus purchase and sales transaction enhancing the income by Rs.4,22,69,707/-. We find that it is not a case of taking accommodation entry from the accommodation entry operators by the assessee. Furthermore, both ld. Assessing Officer and 19 ITA No.2813/Mum/2024 and ors. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

bogus purchase and sales transaction enhancing the income by Rs.4,22,69,707/-. We find that it is not a case of taking accommodation entry from the accommodation entry operators by the assessee. Furthermore, both ld. Assessing Officer and 19 ITA No.2813/Mum/2024 and ors. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel

Rakesh Natwarlal Patel, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No. 2813/Mum/2024 filed by the assessee is partly allowed, ITA No

Bench: Shri. Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri. Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

bogus purchase and sales transaction enhancing the income by Rs.4,22,69,707/-. We find that it is not a case of taking accommodation entry from the accommodation entry operators by the assessee. Furthermore, both ld. Assessing Officer and 19 ITA No.2813/Mum/2024 and ors. Rakesh Natwarlal Patel

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mitesh Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

involved in price manipulation in the scrip thereby confirming the investigation of the department that the scrip is utilized by entry operators for providing accommodation entries under the garb of LTCG by manipulating/rigging up the share price?" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case ... Since assessee traded in the scrip of GCM, it was alleged that assessee had brought its unaccounted money in the books of account through accommodation entry involving sale and purchase of this alleged penny scrip. 3.1. Assessee applied for private placement of 24,000 equity shares of GCM at price

Subramania Sreenivasa Ganeshanatha, Ruwi vs. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

seizure conducted in the case of Kushal Group of Companies, Ahmadabad stating that Kushal Group is involved in price rigging and provide bogus accommodation entries in the form of bogus Long Term Capital Gain / Loss and Short Term Capital Gain / Loss. The AO noticed that during the year under consideration ... trading in various scrip. The ld. AR further submitted that the DRP while confirming the disallowance has held that the nexus between the alleged accommodation entry providers and the assessee need not be established which is not correct. The ld. AR submitted that the AO and the DRP have

Gujarat Land Developers, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

firm belief that qua the pre-search investigation the loans taken by the assessee turned out to be accommodation entries which are rooted in books of account without payments of taxes and accordingly the AO brought the same to tax by making addition of Rs.50,97,643/- u/s 68 r.w.s ... case of the revenue is that the on-money received by various entities accepted by Mr. Anil Morarka is in itself incriminating and the accommodation entry in the form of loans recorded in the books of account is nothing but outcome of on-money received by the group

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Later on, information was received by the AO from the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai that the assessee has availed accommodation entries by way of bogus purchase from various parties. List of the said parties year wise are mentioned herein below: 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act thereby making addition ... found that to treat the genuine purchases as bogus the AO has relied upon the statements of third party and concluded the same as accommodation entry. Since the Ld AO before making addition has not brought on record any valid/justifiable/cogent evidence to independently prove that the said purchases are ingenuine

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Later on, information was received by the AO from the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai that the assessee has availed accommodation entries by way of bogus purchase from various parties. List of the said parties year wise are mentioned herein below: 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act thereby making addition ... found that to treat the genuine purchases as bogus the AO has relied upon the statements of third party and concluded the same as accommodation entry. Since the Ld AO before making addition has not brought on record any valid/justifiable/cogent evidence to independently prove that the said purchases are ingenuine

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Later on, information was received by the AO from the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai that the assessee has availed accommodation entries by way of bogus purchase from various parties. List of the said parties year wise are mentioned herein below: 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act thereby making addition ... found that to treat the genuine purchases as bogus the AO has relied upon the statements of third party and concluded the same as accommodation entry. Since the Ld AO before making addition has not brought on record any valid/justifiable/cogent evidence to independently prove that the said purchases are ingenuine

Dilip Kumar Hazarimal Ahuja, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, 27(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

scrip, amounting to Rs. 50,91,646/-, it was alleged that assessee had brought its unaccounted money in the books of account through accommodation entry involving sale and purchase of this alleged penny scrip. Accordingly, reasons to believe were recorded for initiating re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 to issue a notice ... been relied upon by the 7 Dilip Kumar Hazarimal Ahuja, AY 2016-17 Investigation Wing which forms the basis for alleging the assessee undertaking accommodation entry by way of transaction of sale and purchase of shares of Goenka Business and Finance Ltd. In this respect, ld. Assessing Officer noted

Bhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 18(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailbhagwati Rajaram Chandora, Room No.30, 3Rd Floor, Ganesh Bhuwan, 80 Ramwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai – 400002 ............... Appellant Pan : Aecpc8718H V/S Ito, Ward – 18(1)(2), Mumbai - 400002 ……………… Respondent

conducted in the case of Mr. Shirish Chandrakant Shah on 09/04/2013, wherein it was found that Mr. Shirish Chandrakant Shah was engaged in providing accommodation entries of bogus purchases and bogus long term capital gains/short-term capital loss through various companies, including M/s Paneta Industries Ltd., now known as Aadhaar Ventures ... shares traded value of ₹ 93,24,485 in the scrip of M/s Paneta Industries Ltd., now known as Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd., is an accommodation entry, which is nothing but the return of amount in lieu of cash that the assessee would have paid to hawala operators. Therefore

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Logistics and Developers Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Lotus, Kamdhenu, Green Valley group on dated 09/10/2014. The revenue had carried out investigation in certain companies and noticed those companies were providing only accommodation entries in the form of, inter alia, share application money, unsecured loans etc. It was noticed that the assessees herein have received money from ... companies alleged to be providing accommodation entries. The money was received by the assessees either in the form of share application money or as unsecured loans. On the basis of this information, the revenue carried out search operations in the hands of assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that

DCIT - CC -7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S A. M. Constructions, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

Lotus, Kamdhenu, Green Valley group on dated 09/10/2014. The revenue had carried out investigation in certain companies and noticed those companies were providing only accommodation entries in the form of, inter alia, share application money, unsecured loans etc. It was noticed that the assessees herein have received money from ... companies alleged to be providing accommodation entries. The money was received by the assessees either in the form of share application money or as unsecured loans. On the basis of this information, the revenue carried out search operations in the hands of assessees herein. It is pertinent to note that