← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Supreme Polymers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the results the appeal of the

ITA 189/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

search proceedings, Shri Sanjay Jain was confronted with all the evidences relating to bogus share premium and was confronted with the statements of the entry operators Shri Satish Monga, Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta & Sh. Shashikant Khetan who have admitted on oath that they have provided accommodation entries to Supreme Group ... Jain had sought an 6 DCIT vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. opportunity to cross-examine Shri Satish Monga. Copies of statements of the three entry operators Shri Satish Monga, Shri Kamlesh Gupta and Shri Shashikant Khetan were handed over to Shri Sanjay Jain at his request

Vidarbha Mining Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1265/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S., Am Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income 703, Samarpan Complex, Near Mirador Tax, Circle-1(3)(2), Mumbai Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Hotel, New Link Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400099. Vs. Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Rd, New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv2506M (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Gaurav Kabra Respondent By : Shri. G. J. Ninawe, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A) For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal & Has Also Filed Additional Grounds Which Are As Follows: Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Learned Assessing Officer In Reopening The Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act, Without Appreciating The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case. Vidarbha Mining Private Limited Vs. Dy. Cit

For Appellant: Shri. Gaurav KabraFor Respondent: Shri. G. J. Ninawe, SR. DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

that the reasons for reopening was based on the seized/impounded materials post search where it was found that Shri Mukesh Banka was an entry operator and a key controlling person providing accommodation entry through various concerns of Banka Group. It was further observed that from the information received post search