← 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

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Atul Goel, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed being devoid of any merit

ITA 4145/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.4145/िद"ी/2024(िन.व. 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, C R Building, I.P Estate, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant New Delhi 110002 बनाम Vs. Atul Goel, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Hauz Khas, Delhi 110017 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Pan: Aadpg-2222-P Co No. 111/Del/2024 (A.Y.2012-13) In Ita No. 4145/Del/2024 Atul Goel, S-33, Panchsheel Park, Hauz Khas, Delhi 110017 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadpg-2222-P बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-19(1), 2Nd Floor, C R Building, I.P Estate, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, Chartered Accountant Department By : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 30/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CharteredFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

disallowance of Rs. 2,96,33, 125/ being unexplained income in Client Code Modification and Rs. 8,91,363/- being commission paid to the entry operators" 3 ITA No. 4145/Del/2024 & CO 111/Del/2024 (AY 2012-13) 3. Shri Ashish Tripathi, representing the department submitted that on the basis of report received ... making the addition on account of commission of Rs. 8,91,363/- which has been presumed to be paid by the appellant to the entry operator, the AO has failed to identify who was the accommodation entry provider he is referring to in his order. In the whole assessment order

DCIT, Centraql Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Geemed Promoters P.Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 2242/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Central Circle-28, F-6, Second Floor, New Delhi. Vijay Chowk, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P Co No.114/Del/2018 (Ita No.2242/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Geemed Promoters P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, F-6, Second Floor, Central Circle-28, Vijay Chowk, New Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aaecg1614P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sachin Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 15.01.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi Co No.114/Del/2018 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.298/16-17/Cit(A)-29 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 19.03.2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Central Circle-28, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). The Assessee Has Filed Cross Objection. 2. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 10 Crore On Account Of (Paid - Up Share Capital, Share Premium & Security Premium) Credited In Its Books Of Accounts Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee Had Not Discharged Its Primary Onus To Establish The Identity & Creditworthiness Of The Creditors & Genuineness Of The Transaction During Assessment Proceedings.” 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

Estate P. Ltd. have been routed through the appellant company by layering the funds and the appellant company was used as an entry operator, therefore, addition in the case of M/s MGC Estate P. Ltd. was made under section 68 of the IT Act of Rs.10 crore being the ultimate ... concerns with the help of the appellant (the company owned by Sh Ashok Kumar Tyagi). Since, the appellant company was held to be only entry operator during the course of 3 CO No.114/Del/2018 investigation/assessment proceedings, therefore, addition made in its hand deserve to be deleted. 11. Ground no.8 relates