Which cases are most cited on entry operator?

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656) — 230 citing judgments; ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani (69 Taxmann.com 65) — 142 citing judgments; 5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court (392 ITR 444) — 111 citing judgments; 2 CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri (33 Taxmann.com 281) — 100 citing judgments; Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. (9 SCC 109) — 62 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss entry operator?

BharatTax indexes 2,071 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss entry operator (Section 68).

← All Phrases

“entry operator”

Q: What is the leading case on entry operator?

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656) is the decision most relied on for entry operator, cited in 230 judgments on BharatTax. When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 682,071 judgments

The decision most relied on for entry operator is CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal (328 ITR 656), cited in 230 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on entry operator

CIT v. Jamnadevi Agarwal

328 ITR 656 · 2010 · High Court

230

citing judgments

When faced with allegations of bogus long-term capital gains from penny stocks, the Assessing Officer must discharge the onus of proving that the assessee's transactions were not genuine. The assessee can rely on the principle of preponderance of probability, and the Revenue must present substantial evidence to establish that the transactions were a colourable device or that the assessee was an entry operator.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported

142

citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

5. PCIT v. Paramount Communication (P.) Ltd. Delhi High Court

392 ITR 444 · 2017 · High Court

111

citing judgments

For valid initiation of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer must possess tangible material and apply independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. Reassessment cannot be based on mere borrowed satisfaction or unverified information without proper scrutiny.

2 CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri

33 Taxmann.com 281 · 2013 · High Court

100

citing judgments

The validity of reassessment proceedings initiated under Sections 147/148 against legal representatives of a deceased assessee requires a demonstrable 'reason to believe' that income escaped assessment, often based on third-party information such as alleged accommodation entries.

Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd.

9 SCC 109 · 2007 · Reported

citing judgments

When a State Act has obtained presidential assent, its repugnant provisions prevail over the provisions of a Central Act in that State, even if both laws relate to subjects in the Concurrent List. This principle was applied to determine repugnancy between the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

CIT v. Sanghamitra Bharali

361 ITR 481 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Capital gains arising from sham transactions, particularly those involving penny stocks designed to appear genuine, are not exempt under Section 10(38) but are taxable as unaccounted income brought into the books.

CIT v. Active Traders (P.) Ltd.

214 ITR 583 · 1995 · High Court

citing judgments

When a sum is credited on account of share capital or share premium, the assessee must establish the existence, identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the share applicants, going beyond mere submission of documents. The Assessing Officer has the power to investigate and lift the corporate veil to ascertain the bonafides of such transactions.

Income Tax Vs. India Discount Co. Ltd. 75 ITR 191 (SC), Commissioner of Income Tax v. Provincial Farmers (P) Ltd.

245 ITR 421 · 2000 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The entry in the books of accounts is not determinative of the true nature of a transaction for income tax purposes; the substance of the transaction, rather than its accounting treatment, governs its taxability and deductibility.

Judgments citing entry operator

Chitra Avdhesh Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 33 (1) (3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Investigation team in respect of bogus transactions of capital gain. However, nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named that the appellant was in collusion with them. No finding specifically against the appellant has been made ... Engineering Ltd. or their promoters, directors or any other person who exercised any control over M/s Turbo tech Engineering Ltd or any so-called entry operator. As a matter of fact, no element is available showing that the appellant has indulged in any such questionable activity or has been part

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Vishwanath Singhal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2028/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. Vishwanath Singhal, Circle-58(1), 40, Priya Enclave, Delhi Delhi Pan: Aasps988Ik Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Mangla, Ca Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 68

long-term capital gains. It was established that the contract note was fabricated and bogus. The shares were purchased through the stock market by entry operator controlled entity just before transfer of the shares to the assessee beneficiary within a few days of purchase by way of off-market transfers

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 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

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

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

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

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 of the Assessee is dismissed

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

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

Officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connect with assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine so-called entry providers was given ... Officer denied exemption claimed by assessee under section 10(38) on long-term capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross- examine so-called entry providers was given