“entry operator”

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Teck Consultancy and Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

assessment order that there was incriminating material unearthed during the search, and such incriminating material was corroborated by the statements of well-known entry operators recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act?" 2.2. In cross objection, the assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. On the facts and circumstances

Mansukh Arjanbhai Sureja, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bleι.Τ.Α. No. 4348 & 4347/Mum/2023

sold by the assessee were of S.V.Electricals Ltd. F. That the assessee was never provided with an opportunity to cross- examine the so called entry operators whose statements were relied upon by him to re-open the assessment even after a specific request was made in this regard ... accounts without paying the due taxes. 2.4 The detailed investigation report containing the modus operandi of tax evasion through penny stock and discussion in entry operators from brokers and scripts has been provided along with the letter of DDIT (Inv) Mumbai. 2.5. Our assessee is one of the beneficiary

Mansukh Arjanbhai Sureja, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon’Ble

sold by the assessee were of S.V.Electricals Ltd. F. That the assessee was never provided with an opportunity to cross- examine the so called entry operators whose statements were relied upon by him to re-open the assessment even after a specific request was made in this regard ... accounts without paying the due taxes. 2.4 The detailed investigation report containing the modus operandi of tax evasion through penny stock and discussion in entry operators from brokers and scripts has been provided along with the letter of DDIT (Inv) Mumbai. 2.5. Our assessee is one of the beneficiary

Income Tax Officer 30(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Vivek Ranjit Tanna, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

Bench: Shrianikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyal

capital gain amount to Rs.2,22,950/- and Rs.11,147/- being 5% on Rs.2,22,950/- which is treated as commission provided to the entry operator. The grievance of the Learned Assessing Officer was that the assessee has transacted penny stock in respect of the shares of “M/s Divine Multi ... Dani Shares & Stock Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above, the addition is restricted to Rs.94,950/-. The commission paid to the entry operator is also reduced proportionately and restricted to Rs.4,747/-. In view of the above the appeal is partly allowed.” 4. The cross objection was filed

Ranjay Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer with the direction to the assessee to furnish the necessary details before the Assessing

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shrisunil Kumar Singh, Jm A.Y.2011-12

Director and shareholder to the new Directors. He submitted that the assessee did not have an opportunity to challenge the statement of entry operator and no opportunity to cross examine the same was given to the assessee and in that case the addition could not have been made. He submitted ... that the assessee did not have an opportunity to challenge the statement of entry operator and no opportunity to cross examine the same was given to the assessee and in that case the addition could not have been made. 14. The learned Departmental Representative submitted that the information dated