“entry operator”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,071 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

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

broker and that certain amounts were borrowed from family members and a friend’s company. The assessee denied having any connection with the said entry operators. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation and observed that the assessee had transacted with entities such as M/s Prantapal Tradelink

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

Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata identified 84 listed penny stock companies, shares of which were used for generating bogus LTCG by various entry operators for the beneficiaries who approached the entry operators. The P a g e | 3 Bhawna Kapoor (AY 2014-15) assessee is one of the beneficiaries ... involved in any of the scrupulous activities or directly linked to one of the person who has involved in manipulation/rigging of share prices, entry operator or exit provider as observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ziauddin A Siddique (supra). Therefore, there is no material

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

involved in any of the scrupulous activities or directly linked to one of the person who has involved in manipulation/rigging of share prices, entry operator or exit provider as observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ziauddin A Siddique (supra). Therefore, there is no material ... record how the assessee is involved in any of the scrupulous activities or directly linked to person involved in manipulation/rigging of share prices, entry operator or exit provider as observed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Ziauddin A Siddique in (ITA No.2012

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI , JHANDEWALAN vs. KRSKA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED , DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4666/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

ignoring statement of Sh. Ashish Wegwani recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act in which he has accepted that he is an entry operator and the entry from whom the assessee has availed loan is operated by him to facilitate accommodation entries to beneficiaries. 4. . Whether ... wherein the AO acted upon detailed investigation findings corroborated through the statement of Mr. Ashish Begwani, seizure of Excel sheets from the premises of entry operators and pattern analysis indicating large-scale entry operations. The AO applied mind to the modus operandi and assessed the transaction in light of section

ACIT-17(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SUNIL GIRIDHAR RAHEJA HUF, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7560/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

assessee received Rs. 25,00,000/- from M/s. Sampada Chemicals Ltd., a paper company allegedly managed by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt, who was an entry operator and provided accommodation entries to beneficiaries. The Ld. AR submitted that the Investigation Wing report, extracted in the assessment order, specifically states that

SMT. SANTOSH BAMALWA,DIBRUGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 348/GTY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri Rajesh Kumarsmt. Santosh Bamalwa Acit, Circle-1 C/O A.K. Varma, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Mahalaya Road, Dibrugarh- Milan Nagar, Dibrugarh-786003, 786001, Assam Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aedpb9900P Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 09/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

said list. We note that the Assessing Officer noted that the said scrip is penny stock company controlled and operated by the entry operators and the financial statements of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd. reflecting negligible business activity and losses. Therefore, the said penny stock is nothing but accommodation entry

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 939/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A'sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

huge investment amounts of receipts\nin the garb of sale proceeds against shares of various bogus penny stock\ncompanies, managed and controlled by these entry operators. The assessee\nfailed to submit any satisfactory explanation regarding these transactions\ncoupled with the plethora of incriminating evidence and sworn admittance\nof various persons ... nfollows: -\n9. The AO's reliance on tangible material unearthed in the group search\nand in third-part entry operator investigations is legitimate, particularly because\nthe modus operandi of generating sham LTCG through rigging of penny-stock\nprices is a continuing pattern. The appellant assets that such statements were\nneither

ANIKET SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 Central Circle-1 Chandigarh स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

sale of shares of "MeenaKshi Enterprises", Shantanu Sheorey and M/s Sunstar Realty Development Ltd are also bogus. There are various sworn statements of entry operators duly supported by corroborative evidences which establish that the fact that the assessee received huge investment amounts of receipts in the garb of sale proceeds ... against shares of various bogus penny stock companies, managed and controlled by these entry operators. The assessee failed to submit any satisfactory explanation regarding these transactions coupled with the plethora of incriminating evidence and sworn admittance of various persons. Therefore considering the detailed discussion made in the various paras

AARTI SINGAL,NEW DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the above appeals are allowed

ITA 1145/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 939/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Aniket Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 4, Amritashergil Marg, New Delhi- 110003 स्थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: CZCPS6126E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1145/Chd/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Aarti Singal बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Chandigarh 53, Jor Bagh, New Delhi-110003 स

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A’sFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

NAMAH SHIVAYA MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 18(1), DELHI, DELHI

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

ITA 6011/DEL/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarnamah Shivaya Marketing Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, Ward-18 (1), 206, Hans Bhawan, 1 Bahadur Vs. Delhi-110002. Shah Zafar Marg, Delhi-110002 . Pan-Aabcn7435Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Ca Department By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 07.08.2025 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.11.2019 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward No.18(1), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Ao’] U/S 143(3)/263 Of The Act For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Return Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,070/- On 09.07.2008. Assessment Order Dated 21.03.2016 Was Passed. Hon’Ble

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 153CSection 250Section 68

from the Investigation Wing to take adverse view regarding credits from the shareholders without establishing any nexus of the appellant with the so-called entry operator which was the premise for action u/s 147 in the case. 7. Ld. Departmental Representative relied on order of Ld. CIT(A). Namah Shivaya ... relied on information from Investigation Wing to take the adverse view. Regarding creditworthiness of the shareholders without any nexus of assessee with so called entry operators which was the premises for action under section 147 of the Act. 8.1 Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in PCIT v. Adamine Construction

VANEET AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

Officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under\nsection 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of\nstatement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other\nproceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross-\nexamine so-called entry providers was given ... such contention would only make the decision of the Judicial\nauthorities a fallacy.\n\n11. The evidences put forth by the Revenue regarding the entry operation\nfairly leads to a conclusion that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the\naccommodation entry receipts. In the form of long-term