← 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

ACIT, CC-4(1), Kolkata vs. Sanjeev Kejriwal, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 2206/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील (तलाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं/It(Ss)A Nos.97 To 100/Kol/2024 & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1702/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Rajputana General Commercial Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs Corporation Private Limited 33B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabcr 2016 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2206/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2018-2019) Sanjeev Kejriwal Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs 6/1B, Palm Avenue, Kolkata Pan No. :Aevpk 7424 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr & Shri Manas Mondal, Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.04.24, 31.05.24 & 03.06.24, Passed In The Case Of The Above Two Assessees By The Cit(A), Kolkata-27, For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019, Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata, Income Tax vs. Rajputana General Commercial Corporation Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeals of the revenue in IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 1702/KOL/2024[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआयकर अपील (तलाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)सं/It(Ss)A Nos.97 To 100/Kol/2024 & आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1702/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2014-15, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2012-13 & 2010-11) Rajputana General Commercial Dcit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs Corporation Private Limited 33B, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Aabcr 2016 H & आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2206/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा /A.Ys.2018-2019) Sanjeev Kejriwal Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata Vs 6/1B, Palm Avenue, Kolkata Pan No. :Aevpk 7424 H (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr, Shri Nicholas Murmu, Sr. Dr & Shri Manas Mondal, Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Dated 24.04.24, 31.05.24 & 03.06.24, Passed In The Case Of The Above Two Assessees By The Cit(A), Kolkata-27, For The Assessment Years 2010-2011, 2012-2013, 2014-2015, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 & 2018-2019, Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT

Parth Dinesh Patel, Mehsana vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.137/Ahd/2024 & 138/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Parth Dinesh Patel The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ 18/19, Utkarsh Society Ward-1, V/S. Opp. Market Yard Patan – 384 265 Tal. Visnagar, Mehsana Gujarat – 384 315 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwrpp 7811 A (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 01.12.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of Reassessment Orders Framed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer /Ao”] For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2015–16 & 2016–17, Respectively. As The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans arranged through one Shri Amit Jayantilal Shah, identified as an entry operator. It was reported that Shri Shah had used more than 130 bank accounts to deposit cash and subsequently issued cheques to various beneficiaries, including ... additions under section 68 of the Act aggregating to Rs.86,62,160/-, comprising Rs.32,50,000/- received from five specific parties connected with the entry operator and Rs.54,12,160/- from other lenders. The five parties through whom Rs.32,50,000/- was received were: ITA Nos.137 & 138/Ahd/2024 Parth Dinesh Patel