← All Phrases

“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
62
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
60
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
55
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
55
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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2927/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccd4642C Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, New Delhi Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd4642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

such companies. According to the AO, raising of share capital through charging of unrealistic and unjustified share premium is a key ingredient of accommodation entry operations. He further noted from the copies of their bank statements furnished that majority of debit/credit entries of identical or equal amounts appears ... investing companies have been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. There is no evidence whatsoever that the investing companies were controlled by any entry operator. There is no evidence or allegation that cash was deposited in investing companies or even downstream of investing companies and source of investing companies

M/S. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2422/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13 Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Golf Course Road, Sector-43, Cr Building, Ip Estate, Gurgaon. New Delhi. Pan: Aaccd4642C Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Daffodil Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 303, 3Rd Floor, Global Foyer, Circle-7(1), Cr Building, Ip Estate, Golf Course Road, Sector-43, New Delhi Gurgaon. Pan: Aaccd4642C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.02.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: These Are Cross Appeals. The First One Is Filed By The Assessee & The Second One Is Filed By The Revenue & Are Directed Against The Order Dated 9Th

For Appellant: Shri Sudesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

such companies. According to the AO, raising of share capital through charging of unrealistic and unjustified share premium is a key ingredient of accommodation entry operations. He further noted from the copies of their bank statements furnished that majority of debit/credit entries of identical or equal amounts appears ... investing companies have been assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act. There is no evidence whatsoever that the investing companies were controlled by any entry operator. There is no evidence or allegation that cash was deposited in investing companies or even downstream of investing companies and source of investing companies