← 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-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Lotus Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1482/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)Section 250Section 68

been retracted by all of them. Further, the AO has made allegation that M/s. Satyam Projects Ltd is a company run by various entry operators but have failed to bring anything concrete on record. In fact, during the course of assessment proceedings, enquiries were made by the AO in form

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle - 4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

ground on which the ITAT found fault with the additions made by the AO was that reliance was placed on statement of ‘so called entry operator’ to justify the additions under Sections 68 and 69 of the IT Act. These statements were recorded on various dates in some other procedings

Sushila Choudhary, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 638/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Katariya, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Badgujar, Addl.CIT (Thr. V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

reasons which are recorded, it clearly emerges that the assessee is the beneficiary of those entries by Kayan brothers, who are well known entry operators across the country and this fact has been unearthed on account of the information received by Director General of income-tax, Investigation Branch and therefore ... Branch, Ahmedabad, whereby it has been revealed that present assessee is also the beneficiary of those Kayan brothers, who are in the activity of entry operation throughout the country and therefore, it cannot be said that this is not justifiable material to form a reason to believe by the Assessing

Sunil Poonamchand Saraf, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 900/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 144BSection 147Section 263

income. The PCIT observed that the assessee was identified as end beneficiary of accommodation entry amounting to Rs.4,07,97,829/- from the entry operator Dishman Group. The case of the assessee was reopened after specific reasons recorded for reopening. Since the Assessing Officer has not made any addition ... Assessing Officer and directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh Assessment Order and make addition on account of accommodation entries obtained from entry operator Dishman Group. 4. Being aggrieved by the Order passed under Section 263 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1729/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

para 8 of the assessment order. According to the ld. AO, these companies are shell companies and operated by the entry operators whose main source of income was from commission for providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital, sale of shares, bogus capital gain, etc. Accordingly ... profit. It was also submitted that the money was realized through normal banking channel. However ,the ld. AO relying on the statements of certain entry operators namely Shri Dinesh Dhandania, Shri Praveen Agarwal, Shri Akash Agarwal, Shri Dipankar Sarkar, Shri Subrata Banerjee, added the sale proceeds to the income

Deputy Commissoenr of Income Tax, Kolkata vs. Dollar Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 1728/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, DR
Section 14ASection 68Section 69C

para 8 of the assessment order. According to the ld. AO, these companies are shell companies and operated by the entry operators whose main source of income was from commission for providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus share capital, sale of shares, bogus capital gain, etc. Accordingly ... profit. It was also submitted that the money was realized through normal banking channel. However ,the ld. AO relying on the statements of certain entry operators namely Shri Dinesh Dhandania, Shri Praveen Agarwal, Shri Akash Agarwal, Shri Dipankar Sarkar, Shri Subrata Banerjee, added the sale proceeds to the income

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this cash is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank ... parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this case is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 136/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this cash is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank ... parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this case is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank

DCIT(Central)-1, Raipur vs. Kalmesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 135/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this cash is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank ... parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this case is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 124/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this cash is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank ... parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this case is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 123/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this cash is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank ... parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this case is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank

Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 122/RPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.122, 123 & 124/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Kamlesh Kumar Kesharwani 112, Janta Colony, Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aewpk6876Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.135, 136 & 138/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Central)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(2)

parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this cash is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank ... parties withdraw the same amount from their bank accounts in form of cash. This cash is handed over to the assessee by the entry operator. Then this case is used for purchases from gray market in cash at lower rate. Then the sales is done and payment received in bank

Sunita Jajoo, Surat vs. ITO Ward 2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 882/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo Income Tax Officer, Ward- 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura बनाम Ring Road, Surat City, Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Vs Surat-395 002 Surat-395 001 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

aside the surrounding circumstances which have led to such assessments or orders under Section 263. The manipulative practice adopted by the stock brokers and entry operators was not even adverted to by the tribunal and the entire matter was dealt with in a very superficial manner without dwelling deep into ... learned Senior Standing Counsels, in the chain of events, there are three main person who are involved, the first of which is the entry operator who is said to have managed the overall scam as the entry operator controls several paper companies which have been utilized for routing the cash

Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

ITA 552/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 552/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Rambilash Rajaram Jajoo (Physical Court Hearing) 429-432, Golden Point, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat City, Surat-395 002 [Pan : Aampj 0040 K] अपीलार्थी/Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 882/Srt/2024 (Ay 2011-12) Sunita Jajoo 429-432, Golden Point, Near Bsnl Office, Falsawadi, Ring Road, Surat-395 002 [Pan: Aampj 0040 K] बनाम Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Richa Toshniwal. Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Minal Kamble, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 23.01.2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. These Two Appeals By Separate Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As "Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 21.03.2024 & 21.04.2023 For Same

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

aside the surrounding circumstances which have led to such assessments or orders under Section 263. The manipulative practice adopted by the stock brokers and entry operators was not even adverted to by the tribunal and the entire matter was dealt with in a very superficial manner without dwelling deep into ... learned Senior Standing Counsels, in the chain of events, there are three main person who are involved, the first of which is the entry operator who is said to have managed the overall scam as the entry operator controls several paper companies which have been utilized for routing the cash

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani, Ahmedabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 39/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.39/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Dcit Smt. Denisha Rajendra बनाम/ Central Circle-1(1) Keshwani V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 009 44, Asopalav Bungalows Nr.Muktidham Temple Thaltej, Ahmedabad – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpk 0889 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 22.01.2021, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16, Wherein The Cit(A) Has Deleted The Addition Of Rs.1,17,78,534/- Made Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(1), Dcit Vs. Smt. Denisha Rajendra Keshwani Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

suspicious. 3.1. The AO relied on various reports and investigations conducted by the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, and Mumbai, which unearthed accommodation entry operations in penny stocks. The AO identified common features of penny stock companies, which were present in KPL as well: 1. Initial allotment of shares ... proving the genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) also concluded that the AO failed to establish any link between the assessee and alleged entry operators and the AO’s findings were based solely on the general report of the Investigation Wing, without any specific material against the assessee

Srinivas Shah Radraraju, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.957/Hyd/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Srinivas Shah Rudraraju Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Afcpr1979L] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr.Sachin Kumar, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/01/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 05/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-2, Guntur, Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Is An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y.2014-15 On 31.03.2015, Admitting Total Income Of Rs.53,50,976/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason ‘Suspicious Long Term Capital Gain On Shares’ & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer, Noticed That The 2 Srinivas Shah Rudra Raju

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Dr.Sachin Kumar, DR
Section 68

said alleged scam, it cannot be alleged that the appellant is also part of alleged scam of bogus Long-Term Capital Gain provided by entry operators and the appellant has derived benefit by claiming exemption towards Long-Term Capital Gain

M/S. K.R. Tradelink Private Limited., Howrah vs. Ne-Ac, Delhi.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 927/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act on the basis of statement of Shri Manoj Remeka, who was the accommodation entry operator engaged in providing bogus bills and accordingly, the entire purchases were added to the income of the assessee in the assessment order framed

Tijaria Polypipes Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cirlce 4, Jaipur

ITA 616/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

proceedings on basis of information received from Investigation wing that assessee had received certain amount as a loan from a company, working as of entry operator and earning bogus funds to provide advances to various person, was justified. 24 [2012] 18 taxmann.com 83 (Delhi) IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ... assessee's assessment for assessment year 2012-13 for reasons that information was received from Competent Authority, Kolkata that one 'K' was very known entry operator and instant assessee was also a beneficiary of 'K' to extent of Rs.183 lakhs pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, reasons were sufficient enough

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(3), Mumbai, Bandra Kurla Complex vs. Madhusudan M Jani (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue

ITA 6049/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 250

9/2/2016 in the case of Shri Vipul Vidhur Bhat who in his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act has accepted himself as an entry operator providing accommodation entries to various entities managed and controlled by him for a cash commission @1% to 4% on the amount of accommodation entries