“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

Mamta Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cental Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 427/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Ms. Renu Jauhriita Nos.425 To 428/D/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 2014-15&2016-17) Mamta Jindal Vs. Acit F-3/12, Model Town, Central Circle – 25 New Delhi -110009 New Delhi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं/Pan/Gir No: Pan No.Aeepj6955K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

members also received accommodation entries in the nature of capital gain through Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal on which commission @6% was given to the entry operator. In view of above discussion, the AO made addition on account of commission accordingly. In Sh. Sajan kumar Jain group cases, it was found

Mamta Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cental Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 426/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

Mamta Jindal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Cental Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals are filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 425/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 127Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

Vimal Jagdishprasad Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT, Ahmedabad-3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the order u/s 263 is made effective to the extent of commission paid by the assessee and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 508/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumarshri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, with Shri Rushin Patel ARsFor Respondent: Shri AO Singh, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

PCIT opportunely resorted to proceedings u/s 263 of the Act as the AO omitted to add the percentage of commission paid the entry operator on account of receipt of entry of Rs.92,00,000/- and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order de novo. The issue of addition

Preeti Chirania, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 28(2)(4), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 4245/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy Svs. Ito, Ward – 28(2)(4) Preeti Chirania 309, 3Rd Floor, Tower No. Flat No.3, 1St Floor, 6, Vashi Rly Stn., Mangesh Santa Durga Commercial Complex, Chs, Sector – 17, Nerul Vashi Navi Mumbai – 400 (E), Navi Mumbai – 400 703. 706. Pan/Gir No. Akbpc0636M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 68

prudent business man. The claim thus not best on the market movement but based on the information from any other person like entry operators. Regarding the decision of investment into the share were taken by the directors but minutes book of the company did not reflect any such decision ... directors. In this regard, investigation report had stated that the assessee company was managed and controlled by well-known entry operator Vipul Vidur Bhatt.” 6. The ld. AR further has invited our attention to the Recorded Reason of the ld.AO. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below: - “3. The assesses

Mohan Garg, Faridabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-2, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3659/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshmohan Garg, Vs. Dcit, H. No. 905, Sector-15, So Central Circle-2, Faridabad, Sector-16A, Faridabad Faridabad, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahlpg2577N

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Baljeet Kaur, CIT DR

Section 115Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

through their Chartered Accountant. The assessing officer framed the assessment order detailing the modus operandi as to how the cash is provided to accommodation entry operator in lieu of allotment of shares of a private company. Thereafter when the matter was carried up in appeal before ... both the cases of the entry provider and the beneficiary? b. Whether ITAT was justified in holding that mere failure of cross examination of entry operator is fatal when copy of statement was provided to the Assessee and Assessee failed to discharge the onus of providing the genuineness of LTCG

ACIT-3(1)(1), Ambawadi vs. Omshiv Fabricshub Pvt. Ltd., Navrangpura

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1098/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1098/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Asstt. Year: 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri RN Dsouza, CIT. DR

Section 129Section 131Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that Sanjay Tibrewal / Sanjay Agarwal is an entry operator and all the persons mentioned in para 3 of assessment order are the employees of Sanjay Tibrewal and are involved in cheque discounting. Besides this all the bank account

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva vs. Mansamata Vyapaar Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2054/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

assessee company had taken accommodation entry from one M/s Subhlakshmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. which was a shell company controlled by a well- known entry operator of Kolkata namely Mr. Manoj Kumar. On the basis of the said information, the case of the assessee was reopened after taking prior approval ... Investigation Wing that the assessee company had taken accommodation entry from one M/s Subhlaxmi Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. being controlled by the well-known entry operator namely Mr. Manoj Kumar, the case of the assessee was reopened , information which was received has been depicted in the AO’s order which

Damodar Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir. 1(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.19/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Damodar Distributors Pvt. Ltd....……………………....Appellant 4Th Floor, Room No.401A, 154, Lenin Sarani, Kol-700013. [Pan: Aaccd6184D] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Kolkata.…............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Rajat Datta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 04, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 05, 2024 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 20, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,665/- For Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer Stated That An Information Was Received From Ddit(Inv.), Unit-4(1), Kolkata Regarding Statement From Various Entry Operators Who Utilised Bogus Entry Operators Including Proprietary/Partnership Concerns Who Deposited Cash & Issued Cheques On Demand Of Its Clients. The Assessee Was Identified As One Of The Beneficiaries. In This Regard, Necessary Approval Was Obtained & Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee On 30.03.2016. In Response To The Notice U/S 148, The Assessee Filed Its Return 28.04.2016. I.T.A. No.19/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Damodar Distributors Pvt. Ltd

Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer stated that an information was received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-4(1), Kolkata regarding statement from various entry operators who utilised bogus entry operators including proprietary/partnership concerns who deposited cash and issued cheques on demand of its clients. The assessee was identified

Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Divesh Ashok Bafna, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5410/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 Income Tax Officer Divesh Ashok Bafna, Ward-20(1)(1), 302, C-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 303, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Arihant Apartment, Piramal Chamber, Dr. D.B. Marg, Lalbaugh, Parel, Mumbai Central, Mumbai. Mumbai. Pan : Atapb9065D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 3Section 68

investigation report A.Y. 2015-16 Sheela Ashok Bafna submitted by the Investigation Wing of Department functioning at Kolkata. It is true that some unscrupulous entry operators had devised methods/modus-operandi to beneficiaries to facilitate laundering their black money to white through pre-planned receipt in the form of bogus LTCG, loan

Gyan Prakash Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-10(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usa.Yr. : 2015-16 Gyan Prakash Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(4), B-189, Yojna Vihar, New Delhi – 2 New Delhi – 92 (Pan: Adupg2697N) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

more systematic forms giving impression of genuineness. The Appellant resorted to a well planned scheme for purchase and sale of shares in connivance with entry operators. Such transactions never happen in the natural course of market activities; they are rather driven by predetermined motives. The Assessing Officer has dealt with

Rakesh Daga, Kolkata vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 37, Kolkata, Govt. Place (West)

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Rakesh Daga Acit, Circle-37, Kolkata 71, Mondal Street Group 3, Govt. Place (West), Floor, Burra Bazar, Vs. Kolkata-700001, West Bengal Kolkata-700006, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aglpd1610Q Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Shri Joydeep Chakraborty, Ars Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury &For Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

reopened after the ld. AO received information that the assessee has received accommodation entry from a company owned and operated by Mukesh Banka, the entry operator. We find that the assessee has filed all the evidences before the ld. AO comprising name, address, PAN no., bank statements confirmation, etc. although ... addition cannot be made just on mere suspicion that the money was lent by a company which is operated by Mukesh Bunka, an entry operator. While all the facts and details are available on record which proved the genuineness of the transactions. The case of the assessee find force from

Chandrakumar Madhusudanji Jajodia, Thane vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Amravati Circle

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 399/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kishore P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68Section 69A

para 17 A.O. observed that unaccounted cash generated from real estate business and allied activities and same is routed with the help of entry operators. Allegation made by A.O. is without support of any shred of evidence brought on record. No deemed income can be assessed on mere presumption

DCIT, Central Circle-15, New Delhi vs. Dmg Finance Investment Private Limited, New Delhi

ITA 3432/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs Dmg Finance Investment Private Central Circle-15, Limited, New Delhi. Flat No.1, First Floor, Dakshineshwar, 10 Hailey Road, New Delhi – 110 001. Pan: Aaacd3459K

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Debesh Panda, Special Counsel

Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153A

apparent prudence . This further proves that the share capital subscription received during the above assessment year was received from fly by night entry operators and accommodation entry providers and not from any genuine, bonafide or angel investor. It is settled and clear that a prudent investor would never invest ... contents of the seized documents, that the monies received from five so called investor companies is not genuine share application money but money from entry operators, has turned a blind eye to the contents of the seized material simply because “…these five shareholders admittedly have sold their shares

ACIT, Central Circle - 29, Delhi vs. B.R Goel and Sons HUF, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1529/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshacit, Vs. B. R. Goel & Sons Huf, Central Circle-29, C-28, Preet Vihar, Nirman New Delhi Vihar, Se East Delhi- 110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadhb5670C Assessee By : Shri Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By: Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 14/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Mr. javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

bank account No.910020022948018 maintained with Axis Bank Ltd. and further noted that the karta of assessee HUF is Hawala Entry Operator and that he deposited the cash arising from Hawala activites in the bank account of the assessee HUF. The Assessing Officer has observed that

M/S Swift Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT, Kolkata-1I, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1032/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2024AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR

Section 143Section 148Section 263

Justice Kripal, of late has acquired such enormous proportion that effort for excoriation is found wanting. There has been a mushrooming growth of professional entry operators who provide such share capital for a commission. The commission ranges from 2% to 10% of the capital given Kolkata rates are reported ... country which is why a major portion of block money from throughout the country is routed via the paper companies of the Kolkata entry operators and are shown as genuine share capital in the beneficiary companies. These entry operators register a large number of companies with the ROC with their

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. South Calcutta Diesels Pvt Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1392/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 153ASection 68

assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has been found to have indulged in ploughing back unaccounted money through unsecured loans through accommodation entries by entry operators. The AO on perusal of the record noted that the assessee has received unsecured loan to the tune

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-13, New Delhi., Jhandewalan vs. Wismore Equity Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3494/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 271(1)(b)

residential premises of Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Mukesh Kumar & Ors at Delhi. During search and seizure operation, it was found to be a group of entry operators providing accommodation entries to beneficiaries. Various incriminating papers/documents were found and seized during the course of search and seizure operation and pre/post search operation

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Vejalpur vs. Krishnaavtar J Kabra (HUF), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 119/AHD/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Nov 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr DRFor Respondent: Shri Sakar Sharma, AR

Section 131Section 147Section 250

diamond worth Rs.3.51 crores and since the director of M/s. Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd., Shri Deepak Babel himself has submitted that these are accommodation entry operations, hence the entire ACIT Vs. Krishnaavtar J Kabra (HUF) Asst. Year – 2012-13 - 5– purchases proved to be bogus and liable to be taxed ... designated day on which the cross-examination has been provided to the assessee. Thus, the assessee has also failed to cross-examine the entry operator, and hence there was no reason to dispute the facts stated by the entry operator which can only raise to the conclusion that the assessee

Bhawani Castings Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1362/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandraआअसं.1362/िद"ी/2024 (िन.व. 2018-19) Bhawani Castings P. Ltd., Kn/F-1, Gali No. 10, Anand Parbat, ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Industrial Area, Delhi 110005 Pan: Aaacb-4622-Q बनाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Circle 4(2), C.R Building, New Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar & Ankur Agarwal, Chartered Accountants "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/11/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/11/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 21.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Challenged The Order Of Cit(A) On Following Grounds:

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: Ms. Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148ASection 250

perusal of the information, it is found that your company has taken bogus purchase entries amounting to Rs.1,07,92,679/- from entry operator Mr. Deepak Sharma during FY 2017-18. Search u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been conducted against the Deepak Sharma Group of MandiGobindgarh