← 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

Garima Construction, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 483/RAN/2024[22-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.483/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Garima Construction………….……………............................……….……Appellant M/11 Bariatu Housing Colony Bariatu Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834009. [Pan: Aasfg5282A] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Ranchi...…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 17, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.24 Of The Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of ₹1,87,050. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny On The Basis Of Information Received Through The Criu Portal Pursuant To A Search Operation Conducted On One Shri Naresh Kejriwal, Who Was Identified As A Hawala Entry Operator. Based On Such Information, It Was Alleged That The Assessee Had Received Accommodation Entries Amounting To ₹20,50,000 & ₹1,95,61,000/- During The Relevant Year. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Submitted Details & Supporting Documents To Substantiate The Genuineness Of The Transactions. However, The Assessing Officer Was Not Satisfied With The Explanation

Section 144

information received through the CRIU portal pursuant to a search operation conducted on one Shri Naresh Kejriwal, who was identified as a hawala entry operator. Based on such information, it was alleged that the assessee had received accommodation entries amounting to ₹20,50,000 and ₹1,95,61,000/- during

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

various enquiries made by "The Directors of Income Tax”, Kolkata on project basis and that this resulted into unearthing of a huge syndicate of entry operators and share brokers and money lenders involved in providing of bogus accommodation entries. The report as the so-called project and the evidence collected

Arun Kumar Gupta, DCIT, Circle-1(3), Surat, Adajan vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Adarsh Nagar Society

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 778/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.778 & 779/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Chunibhai Haribhai Gajera, Circle - 1(3), 67, Adarsh Nagar Society, Athwalines, Surat Surat - 395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aawpg3525A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

various enquiries made by "The Directors of Income Tax”, Kolkata on project basis and that this resulted into unearthing of a huge syndicate of entry operators and share brokers and money lenders involved in providing of bogus accommodation entries. The report as the so-called project and the evidence collected

Vijit Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1246/JPR/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Nov 2025AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 234ASection 250

same should not be disallowed or added in income of assessee—AO held that it was camouflage just to introduce its own fund through entry operator therefore amount was added in income of assessee company as unexplained u/s 68—CIT(A) confirmed reassessment and addition made by AO of share

DCIT, Kolkata vs. M/S New Charan Kanwal Finance Company Pvt., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 434/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were also served by e-mail and the assessee was given an opportunity to cross examine the Entry Operator but the director of the company failed to appear before the Ld. AO. It was found in majority of the cases that the lending ... loan. M/s Popular Tie-up Pvt. Ltd. was stated by the assessee to be a group company and not managed and controlled by the entry operators. The assessee submitted that the loans were received through proper banking channel but the Ld. AO was of the belief that merely showing that

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4252/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

appellant got no opportunity to cross examination. The appellant has cited several case laws in its favour. 5.14.2. Though, the cross examination of an entry operator by beneficiaries which may run into multiple numbers and may be spread across the places, is not practicable; least could have been done during ... requests to the AO seeking such statement which was not provided as per the appellant. In the assessment order also, the statement of the entry operator is not dealt with in a speaking manner. 5.15.1. The appellant has assailed the proceedings of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 on different technical

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4251/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

appellant got no opportunity to cross examination. The appellant has cited several case laws in its favour. 5.14.2. Though, the cross examination of an entry operator by beneficiaries which may run into multiple numbers and may be spread across the places, is not practicable; least could have been done during ... requests to the AO seeking such statement which was not provided as per the appellant. In the assessment order also, the statement of the entry operator is not dealt with in a speaking manner. 5.15.1. The appellant has assailed the proceedings of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 on different technical

Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4207/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

appellant got no opportunity to cross examination. The appellant has cited several case laws in its favour. 5.14.2. Though, the cross examination of an entry operator by beneficiaries which may run into multiple numbers and may be spread across the places, is not practicable; least could have been done during ... requests to the AO seeking such statement which was not provided as per the appellant. In the assessment order also, the statement of the entry operator is not dealt with in a speaking manner. 5.15.1. The appellant has assailed the proceedings of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 on different technical

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4206/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

appellant got no opportunity to cross examination. The appellant has cited several case laws in its favour. 5.14.2. Though, the cross examination of an entry operator by beneficiaries which may run into multiple numbers and may be spread across the places, is not practicable; least could have been done during ... requests to the AO seeking such statement which was not provided as per the appellant. In the assessment order also, the statement of the entry operator is not dealt with in a speaking manner. 5.15.1. The appellant has assailed the proceedings of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 on different technical

Income Tax Officer, Faridabad vs. Bhikshu Portfolio Private Limited, Faridabad

ITA 4205/DEL/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

appellant got no opportunity to cross examination. The appellant has cited several case laws in its favour. 5.14.2. Though, the cross examination of an entry operator by beneficiaries which may run into multiple numbers and may be spread across the places, is not practicable; least could have been done during ... requests to the AO seeking such statement which was not provided as per the appellant. In the assessment order also, the statement of the entry operator is not dealt with in a speaking manner. 5.15.1. The appellant has assailed the proceedings of reopening u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 on different technical

ACIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Rajiv Gupta, Hyderabad

ITA 278/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.278/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Rajiv Gupta, Income Tax, Hyderabad. Cirle-8(1), Hyderabad. Pan: Acapg4029K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. SNSR Chinmai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 68Section 69C

assessment order, the AO has made the same addition plus small addition of Rs.59,185/- on account of commission paid to the entry operators. Thus, I find that this case was not fit for issue of notice u/s 148 after 01/04/2021 as per the amended provisions of section 148A since

Gaurav Kumar Arya, New Delhi vs. PCIT -20, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Gaurav Kumar Arya, Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income 3-P, Pocket-4, Tax, Delhi-20, Kondly Gharoli-Ii, Mayur New Delhi. Vihar, Delhi-1100 96 Pan: Airpa0102C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri K. Sampath & V. RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. that the entities M/s. Sarvottam Securities Ltd. and M/s. Upaj Leasing & Finance Pvt. Ltd. are the shell companies of an entry operator, the relevance of ascertaining the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions cannot be undermined. Additionally, the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transactions

Klene Paks Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1772/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata clearly revealed that the lenders in question were merely paper/shell entities engaged in providing accommodation entries. The sworn statements of entry operators such as Shri Amit Agarwal and Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia established that these concerns were controlled and managed by them and were only used ... that many of the entities were not traceable at their registered addresses, as revealed during spot verifications. Considering the modus operandi admitted by the entry operators, the AO held that the unsecured loans claimed by the assessee amounting to ₹1,35,83,735/- and share application money aling with premium

Klene Paks Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1771/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri H Naginchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 68

DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata clearly revealed that the lenders in question were merely paper/shell entities engaged in providing accommodation entries. The sworn statements of entry operators such as Shri Amit Agarwal and Shri Manohar Lal Nangalia established that these concerns were controlled and managed by them and were only used ... that many of the entities were not traceable at their registered addresses, as revealed during spot verifications. Considering the modus operandi admitted by the entry operators, the AO held that the unsecured loans claimed by the assessee amounting to ₹1,35,83,735/- and share application money aling with premium

M/S Space Kraft Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-32, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 5749/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: This Tribunal.

Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151

Himanshu Verma that the assessee was the beneficiary of accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 11,00,000/- from the entities controlled by entry operators, after getting approval from the competent authority u/s 148/151 of the Act, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 22.03.2024 by the Ward

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Jps Buildtech Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2947/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 37Section 37(1)

conducted on 26.10.2020 in the cases of Shri Sanjay Jain and Mehta Group at various residential & business premises. 4. Sanjay Jain is an entry operator found to be running several fictitious entities for providing accommodation entries. During the course of search, 2 sets of books of tally were found ... relevant material on record. It is a case of treating purchases as bogus as they are from entities linked to Shri Sanjay Jain, an entry operator. The Assessing Officer has considered the entire purchase of Rs. 1,63,31,000/- as bogus and disallowed the same

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-30, New Delhi vs. Jps Buildtech Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2946/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 37Section 37(1)

conducted on 26.10.2020 in the cases of Shri Sanjay Jain and Mehta Group at various residential & business premises. 4. Sanjay Jain is an entry operator found to be running several fictitious entities for providing accommodation entries. During the course of search, 2 sets of books of tally were found ... relevant material on record. It is a case of treating purchases as bogus as they are from entities linked to Shri Sanjay Jain, an entry operator. The Assessing Officer has considered the entire purchase of Rs. 1,63,31,000/- as bogus and disallowed the same

Jps Buildtech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1930/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 37Section 37(1)

conducted on 26.10.2020 in the cases of Shri Sanjay Jain and Mehta Group at various residential & business premises. 4. Sanjay Jain is an entry operator found to be running several fictitious entities for providing accommodation entries. During the course of search, 2 sets of books of tally were found ... relevant material on record. It is a case of treating purchases as bogus as they are from entities linked to Shri Sanjay Jain, an entry operator. The Assessing Officer has considered the entire purchase of Rs. 1,63,31,000/- as bogus and disallowed the same

Jps Buildtech Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1929/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajat Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 37Section 37(1)

conducted on 26.10.2020 in the cases of Shri Sanjay Jain and Mehta Group at various residential & business premises. 4. Sanjay Jain is an entry operator found to be running several fictitious entities for providing accommodation entries. During the course of search, 2 sets of books of tally were found ... relevant material on record. It is a case of treating purchases as bogus as they are from entities linked to Shri Sanjay Jain, an entry operator. The Assessing Officer has considered the entire purchase of Rs. 1,63,31,000/- as bogus and disallowed the same

Income Tax Officer Ward 10-3, New Delhi vs. Grape Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3555/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148

made purchases from two concerns, namely M/s Usha Trading and M/s Kumar Sales which were bogus and that they are being operated by entry operators Suresh Kumar Agarwal and Anuj Bukardiwala. Ultimately, the AO added the purchase made from M/s Usha Trading of Rs 1,75,94,841/- and from ... stated that the assessee is indulging in activity of bogus purchase as the parties from whom purchases are made is being operated by the entry operators. We find from the assessment order that the AO had made several efforts to examine the veracity of the information. The AO issued notices