← 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

Pitti Holdings Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2018-19) M/S. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income Tax, Central Circle Pan: Aagcp3824Q 1(1), Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 148Section 148A

possession of the Department, the assessee has availed accommodation entries from M/s. Khoobsoorat Limited, a shell company controlled and managed by well known entry operator Sri Arun Kumar Khemka. Thus the Assessing Officer alleged in the reasons recorded that assessee was involved in transfer of Rs.90 lakhs, Rs.10 lakhs ... possession of the department it is found that M/s Khoobsurat Limited (AABCK0685K) is listed as Shell Company controlled and managed by well-known entry operator Shri Arun Kumar Khemka as per the database of Kolkata based shell companies maintained by the department. M/s Khoobsurat Ltd earlier raised share capital

Kamaladityya Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jharkhand vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 831/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 829/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 830/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 831/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Kamaladityya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, 201, Co-Operative Colony, Bokaro Central Circle-30, Steel City, Jharkhand-827001 New Delhi110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck8525G Assessee By : Sh. Devesh Poddar, Adv. & Sh. Devashish Chatterji, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 829, 830 & 831/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21 Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1071411822(1), 1071412015(1) & 1071412233(1) All Dated 20.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Devesh Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 153C(1)(a)

Delhi has been received on 25.08.2022 stating therein that a search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of IT Act was conducted on a entry operator Sanjay Jain along with his facilitators and some of his beneficiaries who were found to be generating cash against bogus billing of cement

Kamaladityya Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jharkhand vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Dellhi

ITA 830/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 829/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 830/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 831/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Kamaladityya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, 201, Co-Operative Colony, Bokaro Central Circle-30, Steel City, Jharkhand-827001 New Delhi110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck8525G Assessee By : Sh. Devesh Poddar, Adv. & Sh. Devashish Chatterji, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 829, 830 & 831/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21 Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1071411822(1), 1071412015(1) & 1071412233(1) All Dated 20.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Devesh Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 153C(1)(a)

Delhi has been received on 25.08.2022 stating therein that a search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of IT Act was conducted on a entry operator Sanjay Jain along with his facilitators and some of his beneficiaries who were found to be generating cash against bogus billing of cement

Kamaladityya Construction Pvt. Ltd, Jharkhand vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, Delhi

ITA 829/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 829/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Ita No. 830/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 831/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Kamaladityya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dcit, 201, Co-Operative Colony, Bokaro Central Circle-30, Steel City, Jharkhand-827001 New Delhi110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadck8525G Assessee By : Sh. Devesh Poddar, Adv. & Sh. Devashish Chatterji, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.10.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 829, 830 & 831/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020- 21 Arise Against The Cit(A)-30, New Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2024-25/1071411822(1), 1071412015(1) & 1071412233(1) All Dated 20.12.2024, In Proceedings U/S 153C R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Devesh Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 153CSection 153C(1)(a)

Delhi has been received on 25.08.2022 stating therein that a search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of IT Act was conducted on a entry operator Sanjay Jain along with his facilitators and some of his beneficiaries who were found to be generating cash against bogus billing of cement

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Mahavir Associates Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), बनाम Gala No. 1, Apollo Chamber, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mogra Pada Road, Andheri Chambers, Mumbai – 400012, East, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.83/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1134/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2015-16) Mahavir Associates V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Gala No. 1, Apollo बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), Chamber, Mogra Pada 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Road, Andheri East, Chambers, Mumbai – 400 012, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Narendra Patel, Ar Revenue By: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 144Section 41(1)

given by the Manager on the day of survey and disclosing an amount of Rs.3.01 Crores ………………. the instant case is not that of an entry operator or similar other issue wherein the circumstantial evidence and the statements are the subject matter of fact finding, but in the instant case

Spirit Global Constructions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3821/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] M/S. Spirit Global Vs Acit, Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Central Circle-15, Plot No.1, Lsc, Site No.37- Delhi 38, Morland, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019. Pan-Aaics2757B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amitosh Moitra, Ca & Roli Chaubey, Ca Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)- 26, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.10187/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is A Private Limited Company, Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 27.09.2012, Declaring Loss Of Inr 2,91,85,777/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) In Terms Of Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Income So Declared Was Accepted. Thereafter, Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened In Terms Of The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 31.03.2019 & Subsequently, Re-Assessment Order Was Passed On 24.12.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 3.50 Crores Received From M/S. Anamika Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores & M/S. Gajraj Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd. Of Inr 1.75 Crores Each By Holding The Same As Unexplained Credits.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

finally, came to the assessee. It was the allegation of Department that M/s. Lavender Vincom Pvt. Ltd. was controlled and managed by entry operator who provided the entries after charging commission and through this company, assessee has taken accommodation entries of INR 3.50 Crores which was received from M/s Anamika