“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

Income Tax Officer, I P Estate vs. Bansal Insulation Products Pvt Ltd., Okhla Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed as

ITA 2892/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2892/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. C.R. Building, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, I.P. Estate, Delhi. Phase-Ii, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & Co No.79/Del/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2892/Del/2024) िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Bansal Insulation Products P. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, C-54/3, Okhla Industrial Area, Vs. C.R. Building, Phase-Ii, Delhi. I.P. Estate, Delhi. Pan No.Aaacb5035F अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

made by the AO on account of accommodation entry assessee incurred for obtaining expenditure at the rate of 2% as commission paid to entry operator considering addition as a result of accommodation entry of Rs.8,31,15,448/-. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case ... Since the bogus entries taken by the assessee is nothing but equal amount of cash has been paid to entry operators and thereupon cheque of equal amount was taken as recorded by the AO in the assessment order. Therefore, he strongly supported the order of the AO in treating Rs.8

Man Mohan Agarwal, Meerut vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghazaibad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1214/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Man Mohan Agarwal, Vs Dcit/Acit, 1/8, Shri Laxmi Lok, New Central Circle, Mohanpuri, Sarrafa Bazar, Ghaziabad. Meerut, U.P-250002. Pan-Acapa1883B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250

present case, the transactions in the bank account of Shiva Trading Company clearly point out to the fact that it is an entry operator, a fact which has been confirmed by Sh. Rahul Chaudhary in his statement. Also, the appellant could not furnish the mode of transport of bullion

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 705/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and abesnce of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of entry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or always claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the bench is trying ... table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and abesnce of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of entry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or always claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the bench is trying

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 697/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and abscence of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of entry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or always claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the bench is trying ... table prepared (supra) clearly demonstrates the doubtful nature and abscence of creditworthiness of the parties concerned. It's a typical model of entry operators where they either file return of income below taxable or always claim the refund of T.D.S. deducted out of such transactions. Uptil, the bench is trying

Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu vs. Bagaria Trade Impex, Churu

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed and order of the AO is

ITA 696/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Sandeep Goel, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68

Umesh Bahu, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 573/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2016-17 Shri. Umesh Babu, Vs. Ito, S O Thippeswamy Onkareshwara Badavane, Ward – 1, Jagalur Town, Jagalur, Davangere. Davangere – 577 528. Pan : Aanpu 1988 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S,Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 69A

present facts of the case of the assessee and submitted that in the case of D. K. Garg noted supra, is related to the entry operator and as per para 18 of the judgment, in that case, there was deposit in the name of different persons during the previous year

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

ITA 962/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायापीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा0 एस. सी. सीतांलक्ष्मी

Whole Sale Cloth Merchant Association, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No

ITA 961/JPR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40

array atitcia after, cage =aradis, wage IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,” A” JAIPUR So Wa. Ware, ae

Pardeep Kumar, Panipat vs. ITO Ward -1, Panipat

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5160/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 5160/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Pardeep Kumar V Ito C/O J B Sharma, Advocate 72, S Ward- 1 Bmk, Market, Nr Hotel, Hive, Gt Panipat Road,Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abjpk5684N Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.09.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/107937854(1) Dated 29.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused. 3. Case Called Twice But None Appeared. At Assessee’S Behest It Is Accordingly Proceeded Exparte. 4. It Next Emerges With The Able Assistance From Revenue’S Side That Both The Learned Lower Authorities Have Disallowed The Assessee’S Purchases As Sourced From Alleged Entry Providers To The Tune Of Rs.27,32,625/- Followed By Estimation Of 2% Commission Expenditure To The Tune Of Rs.2603/-, As Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147

inference which would arise in such instance is that the assessee had actually sourced his purchases from unlisted dealers and availed accommodation entries from entry operators. It is thus deemed appropriate in larger interest of justice that a lump sum disallowance of 10% on the assessee’s foregoing purchases would

Income Tax Officer 58(3), Vikas Bhawan vs. Prithvi Raj Kandoi (HUF), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1606/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer 58(3), Vs. Prithvi Raj Kandoi (Huf) Room No. 317-D, 175, Ram Vihar, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, Vikas Marg Extn, New Delhi – 110 002 Surajmal Vihar, East Delhi (Pan: Aaahp3425Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha Gupta, CA & Sh. Lalit Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,05,127/- which is nothing but accommodation entry manipulated by the entry operators to route the unaccounted bogus money of the assesse by trading in the scrip of M/s Global Markets Ltd. Which is a penny stock ... that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 8,05,127/- which is nothing but accommodation entry manipulated by the entry operators to route the unaccounted / bogus money of the assessee by trading in the scrip of M/s Global Capital Markets Ltd., which is a penny

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(4), Muzaffarnagar vs. Shah Nawaz Rana, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2865/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2016-17 Ito, Vs Shah Nawaz Rana, Ward 3(2)(4), 786, Meerut Road, Muzaffarnagar. New Rana House, Muzaffarnagar (Up). Pan: Abtpr6568E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

mean a different entity, are far greater than that of reporting a wrong name. In any case, the modus operandi of the accommodation entry operators in this case rules out the possibility of a non-business entity availing of its services. There is in effect, no evidence to indicate that

Raghvender Shankar Finance & Investment Company Private Limted, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 8572/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Singhal Fasteners Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Pvt. Ltd. Circle-24(2), Room No.248, 67-68, Rampuri, Govind Puri, Vs C.R. Building, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacs1428H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2009-10] M/S Shankar Radhey Finance Income Tax Officer & Investment Company Ward-23(1), Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110088 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year: 2006-07] M/S Raghvender Shankar Income Tax Officer, Finance & Investment Ward-15(1), Company Private Limited, Vs New Delhi-110002 Ag-5, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi-110052 Pan-Aabcs0968H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Abhishek Mathur, Ca Revenue By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

dated 15.03.2012 mentioning therein that a search operation was carried out in the case of Sh. Aseem Kumar Gupta Group (herein after known as Entry operator) wherein after intensive and extensive enquiry and examination of document seized during course of search, it has been noticed that the said group

Shankar Radhey Finance & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 23(1), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Singhal Fastners Co. P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1066/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shrinidhi Enterprize, Surat

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

ITA 914/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.914/Srt/2024 & 797/Srt/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 The Acit Shrinidhi Enterprize Central Circle-3 बनाम/ 6/1862, 63, Ground Floor Surat Ghanshyam Bhuvan V/S. Bali Sheri, Mahidharpura Surat – 395 003 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Acbfs 6484 R (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Cit(Dr) Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

merits also raised the legal ground before the Ld. CIT(A) contesting the validity of the reopening of the assessment stating that since no entry operators had named the assessee as a beneficiary and that no incriminating documents were found during the search action against the assessee, hence, the reopening ... only of labour contractors’ bank statements, ITRs, and computations, with no direct incriminating evidence linking the assessee with accommodation entries. That no entry operator or contractor named the assessee as a beneficiary, and affidavits were similarly worded without evidence. Further that no opportunity to cross-examine the parties was provided

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Shrinidhi Enterprize, Surat

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are, hereby, dismissed

ITA 797/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 44A

ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata vs. Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and 11

ITA 2692/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata.….……………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd ………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] C.O. 19/Kol/2025 (In Ita Nos.2692 /Kol/2024) Assessment Year: 2019-20 Rameswara Infrastructures Ltd.….……………. ….……….……….……Cross-Objector 19A, Sarat Bose Road Lr Sarani Kolkata-20. [Pan: Aaecr0505J] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata...………………………...…..…………….Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 68

have been made by the Assessing Officer solely on the basis of statement of Shri Sunil Kumar Murmuria who is alleged to be an entry operator and engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries. The ld. AR submits that the additions made in the course of unabated assessment proceedings

ACIT, CC-3(4), Kolkata vs. Khetawat Properties Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2679/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

ACIT, CC - 3(4), Kolkata vs. Khetawat Properties Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2655/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

ACIT, Kolkata vs. Khetawat Properties Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and cross-objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2644/KOL/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68