← 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

Udita Gupta, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaudita Gupta, Vs. Acit, Central Circle 29, 43/1, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. Delhi – 110 054. (Pan : Advpa9481B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Order : 12.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals-30, New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 21.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, The Case Of The Assessee Was Picked Up For Limited Scrutiny & During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee’S Claim Of Earning Capital Gain Amounting To Rs.57,11,085/- & Rs.46,95,755/- From Sale Of Shares Of M/S Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Goenka Business & Finance Ltd. Totaling Rs.1,04,06,840/- Were Examined. The Assessing Officer

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 151Section 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind vs. Vikas Jain, Jind

In the result, the assessee succeeds in its cross-objection

ITA 838/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.838/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Shri Vikas Jain बनाम/ Ward 1 Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Vs. Jind-126102. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co No. 28/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.838/Chandi/2024) Shri Vikas Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Ward 1 Vs. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (Cross Objector) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69C

Rs.7,67,89,408/- because the modus operandi adopted by the assessee, as clearly accepted / explained before the officers of DGGI by the entry operator that all such transactions are routed through the banking channel but not the genuine business transactions. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting ... which it has been held that even payment of account payee cheque is not sufficient to establish the genuineness of the purchases. When the entry operator himself accepted that he had given only accommodation entries to the beneficiaries from their bogus concerns as well as through detailed enquiry / investigation

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1708/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

back the same in their regular books of accounts of Group concerns in the garb of unsecured loans with the help of the accommodation entry operators, brokers etc. routed through various web of paper/shell/jama-kharchi companies and by resorting to above methods the assessee also brought its unaccounted income ... unexplained expenditure of Rs.2,62,250/- in the form of secret & undisclosed commission expenses paid to entry operators from unaccounted cash u/s 69C of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1661/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans from entities, managed and controlled by the entry operator Shri Rajkumar Kothari. The ld. AO noted in para 7, the details of three parties from whom the assessee borrowed aggregating ... afore-mentioned unsecured loan transactions are declared to be genuine, there no question arises in respect of availing entry by the assessee from any entry operator. The investigation wing as well as the AO had neither found any incriminating evince which can prove that the assessee had actually paid Rs.75

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1660/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans from entities, managed and controlled by the entry operator Shri Rajkumar Kothari. The ld. AO noted in para 7, the details of three parties from whom the assessee borrowed aggregating ... afore-mentioned unsecured loan transactions are declared to be genuine, there no question arises in respect of availing entry by the assessee from any entry operator. The investigation wing as well as the AO had neither found any incriminating evince which can prove that the assessee had actually paid Rs.75

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1659/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans from entities, managed and controlled by the entry operator Shri Rajkumar Kothari. The ld. AO noted in para 7, the details of three parties from whom the assessee borrowed aggregating ... afore-mentioned unsecured loan transactions are declared to be genuine, there no question arises in respect of availing entry by the assessee from any entry operator. The investigation wing as well as the AO had neither found any incriminating evince which can prove that the assessee had actually paid Rs.75

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1658/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans from entities, managed and controlled by the entry operator Shri Rajkumar Kothari. The ld. AO noted in para 7, the details of three parties from whom the assessee borrowed aggregating ... afore-mentioned unsecured loan transactions are declared to be genuine, there no question arises in respect of availing entry by the assessee from any entry operator. The investigation wing as well as the AO had neither found any incriminating evince which can prove that the assessee had actually paid Rs.75

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1657/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans from entities, managed and controlled by the entry operator Shri Rajkumar Kothari. The ld. AO noted in para 7, the details of three parties from whom the assessee borrowed aggregating ... afore-mentioned unsecured loan transactions are declared to be genuine, there no question arises in respect of availing entry by the assessee from any entry operator. The investigation wing as well as the AO had neither found any incriminating evince which can prove that the assessee had actually paid Rs.75

DCIT, Central Circle - 4(4), Kolkata vs. Ladhuram Toshniwal and Sons Electricals Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, allthe appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1656/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mandal, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans from entities, managed and controlled by the entry operator Shri Rajkumar Kothari. The ld. AO noted in para 7, the details of three parties from whom the assessee borrowed aggregating ... afore-mentioned unsecured loan transactions are declared to be genuine, there no question arises in respect of availing entry by the assessee from any entry operator. The investigation wing as well as the AO had neither found any incriminating evince which can prove that the assessee had actually paid Rs.75

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(3), Kolkata vs. Avima Exports Private Limited, Kolkata

Accordingly the ground No. 2 is dismissed by upholding the order of Ld

ITA 1439/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle 4(3) Avima Exports Private Limited 4Th Ns Road, Dalhousie, Kolkata, 110, Shantipally, Vs. Kolkata-700107, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca5857N Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

which certain documents were seized. During the course of survey, the survey team found that the assessee was beneficiary of bogus unsecured loans through entry operators and shell companies. The survey team noted from the statements recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 04/05.11.2019 of Shri Vishwanath Gupta, which ... bogus based on the statements of Shri Mukesh Banka , Mr. Arun Nangalia and Mr. Manohar Nagalia recorded during search proceedings on them and other entry operators. The ld also held that the as the identities of the loan creditors were shown by the assessee, the can poroceed against the loan

DCIT(CC)-8(3), Mumbai vs. Girraj Kishor Agrawal, Mumbai

In the result, the grouds of appea raised by the revenue are

ITA 3769/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt. Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 254(1)Section 68

There is no allegation that assessee is directly or indirectly involved in any irregularities or activities relating to manipulation of alleged share. Even the entry operator Vipul Vidur Bhatt has not stated in anything that assessee is involved in any activities of price rigging or providing accommodation entry ... there is no allegation that assessee is directly or indirectly involved in any irregularities or activities relating to manipulation of alleged share. Even the entry operator Vipul Vidur Bhatt has not stated in anything that assessee is involved in any activities of price rigging or providing accommodation entry. We find

Axiomatic Itech Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 191/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

that it was engaged in facilitating bogus donations under section 35(1)(ii). It was found that donors, with the help of brokers and entry operators, received back the donation amount in cash after deduction of a small commission. The Assessing Officer noted that the statements recorded from key persons

Income Tax Officer 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Sureshkumar Bhikalal Thakker, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

ITA 1593/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Dipen Shukhadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 69A

manipulated transaction. The assessee also claimed that there was no evidence of any direct involvement in price manipulation or exchange of cash with entry operators. Reliance was placed on several judicial precedents, including PCIT v. Ziauddin A. Siddique (Bom.), CIT v. Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal (Bom.), PCIT v. Krishna Devi ... were genuine and supported by regular documentation, and that there was no material to indicate any direct nexus between the assessee and the alleged entry operators or any exchange of unaccounted cash. However, this line of argument is not sustainable. In such cases of penny stock manipulation, it is practically

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Bhaveshkumar Girishbhai Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

ITA 979/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68

that the pattern of price movements did not correlate with general market indices like the BSE Sensex. Further, investigations showed that certain individuals and entry operators, including Shri Ashish Panalal Shah, were involved in synchronized trading and price manipulation in the scrip of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. to generate fictitious LTCG ... scrip of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. was artificially manipulated and that the assessee's gains were part of a larger racket involving cash payments to entry operators for generating exempt LTCG through colorable transactions. The AO observed that the assessee had sold 13,000 shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd., resulting

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Bhaveshkumar Girishbhai Bhandari, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of

ITA 978/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68

that the pattern of price movements did not correlate with general market indices like the BSE Sensex. Further, investigations showed that certain individuals and entry operators, including Shri Ashish Panalal Shah, were involved in synchronized trading and price manipulation in the scrip of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. to generate fictitious LTCG ... scrip of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. was artificially manipulated and that the assessee's gains were part of a larger racket involving cash payments to entry operators for generating exempt LTCG through colorable transactions. The AO observed that the assessee had sold 13,000 shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd., resulting

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs. Girishkumar Amratlal Bhandari HUF, Himatnagar, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed and the order of

ITA 977/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Shri Abhijit Sr.DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 37(1)Section 68

that the pattern of price movements did not correlate with general market indices like the BSE Sensex. Further, investigations showed that certain individuals and entry operators, including Shri Ashish Panalal Shah, were involved in synchronized trading and price manipulation in the scrip of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. to generate fictitious LTCG ... scrip of Kushal Tradelink Ltd. was artificially manipulated and that the assessee's gains were part of a larger racket involving cash payments to entry operators for generating exempt LTCG through colorable transactions. The AO observed that the assessee had sold 13,000 shares of Kushal Tradelink Ltd., resulting

Hello Textiles, Navapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Dhule

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

ITA 1550/PUN/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1550/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Hello Textiles, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Dhule. At Navapur, Taluka Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar- 425418 Pan : Aagfh1028P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Rathi Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Has Not Furnished Its Original Return Of Income For The Period Under Consideration. On The Basis Of Information Received On 28.03.2017 From The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (Inv.)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep RathiFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

subsequently notice u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee. According to Investigation Wing, Ahmedabad, six parties were involved in unauthorised activities of entry operator, entry provider and converting unaccounted income through banking channels without paying taxes. These concerns were only dummy concern whose bank accounts were operated with

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Swikrutee Finance Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 610/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit-Cc-7(3) Swikrutee Finance Private Room No. 655, Floor 6Th, Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Office No. Ii 289 Emca Vs. Mumbai- 400020 House, S B S Road, Mumbai 400001 Pan: Aaocs2723H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Anand Mundra Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R. Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac)/ Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemption) (In Short ‘Ld. Commissioner’) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘Act’) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee Is Registered As Non-Banking Financial Company (Nbfc) With Reserve Bank Of India & Engaged In The Financial Requirement Of Emerging Small & Medium Enterprises (Sme) Segment, Including Rendering An Advisory Services Relating To Financial Aspect.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Esquire Enclave Pvt. Ltd and M/s Bosslife Infratech Pvt. Ltd., are the shell companies, which are controlled and managed by the entry operator Praveen Agarwal through dummy Directors. It was also found that M/s Panchkoti Promoters Pvt. Ltd is strike off company having bank account in ICICI bank and transferred

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1620/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

controlled by him including M/s Dolex Commercial Private Limited (the assessee before this Tribunal), Sri Vipul Vidur Bhatt accepted that he was an entry operator involved in providing various bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries for earning commission and furnished names of 347 bogus entities including the assessee which were

Dolex Commercial Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Cent-Cir 8(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for A

ITA 1619/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 144Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40aSection 68

controlled by him including M/s Dolex Commercial Private Limited (the assessee before this Tribunal), Sri Vipul Vidur Bhatt accepted that he was an entry operator involved in providing various bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries for earning commission and furnished names of 347 bogus entities including the assessee which were