“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

Puja Agarwal, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 1, Rourkela

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/CTK/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.628/Ctk/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Puja Agarwal, Vs Ito Ward-1, Rourkela O-18, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No. : Agwpa 5744 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ayush Agarwal, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, Jm :

For Appellant: Shri Ayush Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)

through whom the assessee sold the shares of KAFL as a beneficiary to the alleged accommodation entries provided by the related entities / promoters / brokers / entry operators. In the instant case, the shares of CPAL were purchased by the assessee way back on 20.12.2011 and pursuant to merger of CPAL with

Mittal Cotspin Limited, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 950/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 950/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Mittal Cotspin Ltd., The Ito, St. No. 1, Opp. Govt. Primary Vs Ward 2(5), High School, Madhopouri, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aagcm7124G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca, Shri Aditya Sood, Ca & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, Ca Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.02.2026

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA, Shri Aditya Sood, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

well as documents disseminated, it is noticed that a search & seizure operation was conducted in the case of Sh. Nawal Kishore Jalan, Kolkata based entry operator on 21.05.2018. The statement of Sh. Nawal Kishore Jalan was recorded and admitted that he was A.Y.2014-15 3 engaged in providing accommodation entry ... orders of Revenue Authorities submitted that though assessment was reopened for the reason that assessee has availed benefit of accommodation entry from an entry operator Shri Nawal Kishore Jalan of Calcutta, which information percolated to the AO later on. In the assessment order, he has made two additions

Mr. Anmol Govindram Sekhri, Bandra Arcade, Nandi Gully, Opp Bandra Railway St vs. Circle 16(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhawan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1091/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarmrs. Suneeta Sekhri V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of (Legal Heir Of Mr. Anmol बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 16(2), Govindram Sekhri), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – Ground Floor, Bandra Arcade, 400020, Maharashtra Nandi Gully, Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra(West), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Alhps9957L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ajgaonkar & Ms. Rupal Shrimal, ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, (CIT-DR)

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 68

modus operandi regarding the basic aim of income tax evasion. The AO had explained in paragraph 10.7.1 of the assessment order that the entry operator of the penny stock routes the unaccounted money of LTCG beneficiaries into their account/books in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain. This entry

DCIT - CC -3(2), Mumbai vs. Mangalkalash Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 576/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69Section 69C

business activity and was used merely as a conduit to introduce unaccounted funds, sourced from entities controlled by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, an alleged entry operator. 2.2 Consequent thereto, notice under section 153A of the Act was issued on 06.05.2015. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with

Sharad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

In the result, the “Impugned order” is set aside as & by

ITA 185/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

very well aware of his intention on which basis these transaction were performed. .He was a person deeply engaged in the business of entry operator and he mainly engaged in these activities rotating money of various companies from account to accounts and finally providing credit in beneficiaries accounts as share

Sharad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

In the result, the “Impugned order” is set aside as & by

ITA 182/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

Sarad Kumar Darak, Indore vs. ACIT Central -2, Bhopal

In the result, the “Impugned order” is set aside as & by

ITA 181/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 253Section 69A

Bipinkumar Rambhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 993/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalbipinkumar Rambhai Patel, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of B/25, Ranchod Colony, Income-Tax-1, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 Ahmedabad-1 [Pan :Aqapp 5046 M] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Respondent Represented By: Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

were routed through the specific bank account admitted by Shri Sanjay Shah, as also failed to verify the quantum of income offered by the entry operator. According to the Ld. PCIT, failure to make such verification rendered the reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue

Jay Hansraj Chheda, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2656/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Mr. Jay Hansraj Chheda Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(1) Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Villa, Matru Mandir, Room No. 221, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400007. Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) (Respondent) : Income Tax Officer Jay Hansraj Chheda Room No. 61, 4Th Floor, Vasant Room No. 502, Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400012. Vs. Villa, Behnama Hall Lane, Prarthna Samaj, Mumbai – 400006. Pan/Gir No. Ajlpc9910H (Assessee) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Manoj Pandit

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Rs.7,96,365/- u/s. 69 of the Act, towards the commission @2% on the said transaction alleged to have been paid to the entry operators. 4. Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority, who vide order dated 11.03.2024 partly allowed the assessee’s appeal by upholding ... identified the said scrip to be a penny stock and the ld. AO has also given details of the exit providers of these accommodation entry operators pertaining to the said scrip. The ld. DR relied on the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case

Gargi Overseas Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 91/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumargargi Overseas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 2623-A, Naya Bazar, Delhi Ward-10(1), Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacg3165F

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

basis of information obtained through Risk Profiling System of Income Tax Department regarding alleged tax evasion through sales and purchase made through entry operators, notice u/s 148 of the Act stood issued to the assessee on 30.06.2021. The information which was received was based on survey conducted u/s 133A

Rita Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1389/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1388 & 1389/Kol/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012) Rita Das, Vs Acit, Cc-23 (1), Hooghly C/O S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata,Wb-700001 Pan No. :Arhpd 6149 D

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

basis for which is not disclosed. Who is the accommodation entry giver is not mentioned. How he can be said to be "a known entry operator" is even more mysterious. Clearly the source for all these conclusions, one after the other, is the Investigation report of the DIT. Nothing from

Rita Das, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1388/KOL/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jan 2026AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Sr. DR

Amit Kumar Bajaj, Mumbai vs. DCIT-24(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1309/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaramit Kumar Bajaj Dcit-24(1), A-3001, Omkar, Off Dr. Piramal Chambers, Annie Besant Road, Near Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- Neelam Centre, Hanuman 400 012 Nagar, Worli, Maharashtra – 400 030 Pan/Gir No. Afrpb3442B (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Ganatra, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Assessing Officer, relying heavily on the investigation report, analysis of price movement of the scrip, financials of the company, statements of certain brokers and entry operators, and applying the test of human probabilities, came to the conclusion that the transaction was a pre-arranged and sham transaction, entered into with ... connivance, and pre-conceived arrangement. x. The Assessing Officer finally concluded that the assessee had entered into sham and arranged transactions, in consultation with entry operators, to bring unaccounted money into the books in the guise of exempt Long Term Capital Gain. 7 Amit Kumar Bajaj 11. On the basis

Ldm Agro Foods Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4347/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri R S Singhavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 37(1)

following entities: 4 | P a g e LDM AGRO FOODS PVT LTD NAME AMOUNT REMARKS Madanlal Madho 201677 Bogus purchases made by Prashad entry operator Kalki Trading 135045 Bogus purchases made by Company entry operator LDM Agro Foods 11689146 Unexplained credits Pvt. Ltd. Total: 1,20,25,868/- However

DCIT, CC-18, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Jagat Agro Commodties Pv. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1883/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

done by AO, without appreciating the fact that investigation wing has found that during search and survey in the case of the entry operators who have given entries to the assessee were engaged in providing accommodation entries through non-genuine purchase and non-genuine sales to the assessee ... made by the assessee and debited in the P&L account were held to be from non-existent / entry operator entities and accordingly added 100% of this amount to the total income of the assessee. There were unaccounted estimated cash payment of Rs. 89,34,250/- (@50% of rent

DCIT, CC-18, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Jagat Agro Commodties Pv. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1882/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Golden Goenka Credit Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1799/KOL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 127Section 132(1)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

Dataware Private Limited reported in 2011 (9) TMI 175 is not applicable. b) The AO claimed that Girdhari Lal Goenka is an entry operator who is engaged in conversion of unaccounted money and channelizing the same into banking channel, without paying taxes, and further investing the same into real estate ... charge of AO. However, while assessing the said two lenders, the AO has treated them as beneficiary of loans received from other so called entry operators. The Assessee Company has filed copies of the Assessment Orders passed by same AO in the case of M/s. Jajodia Finance Limited passed

Ranjanben Chunilal Gada, Mumbai vs. Tio 34(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148ASection 246ASection 250Section 69ASection 69C

information about the Assessee. (ii) The Assessing Officer has not proved any connection or exchange of cash between the Assessee and the so-called Entry Operator, Shri Naresh Jain. (iii) The Assessing Officer is not having any direct or conclusive evidence stating that the said transaction in question is bogus ... Nyssa Corporation Ltd. It was submitted that the allegations of the A.O. that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the entry operations allegedly were based on assumptions and surmises as the AO. It was further submitted that the AO had not revealed to the assessee that the alleged

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Supreme Holdings & Hospitality (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3983/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

given by the assessee company to accommodate any loan entry or there is any cash trail. Neither there is involvement of any kind of entry operator nor were these companies found to providing accommodation entry of loan by taking some temporary cash. Without such information or material, there cannot

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Supreme Holdings & Hospitality (India) Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3982/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth SrivastavaFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68