“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

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7309/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraastt. Year: 2011-12 & Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Acit, Vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd. Central Circle-13, 205, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Samarpan, Chakala Link Road, Andheri East, Mumbai Maharashtra. Pan Aabcl3501H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

evidentiary value despite the fact that specific details and corroborative banking transactions were identified by the entry operator. III. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in observing that requisite details and evidences filed by the assessee were sufficient to prove the genuineness of the transaction ... have provided opportunity to cross examine the person or atleast issued commission to Revenue Authorities at Kolkata to summon and specifically inquire about alleged entry operator, because heavy reliance has been placed on the statement. It is an elementary principle of law that, if any adverse inference is drawn against

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Lizer Cylinders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 7282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 132(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

ITO, Jaipur vs. Girraj Khandelwal HUF, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Vishnu Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee was also found who has booked loss of Rs.3,30,056/-. Since, the prices of this scrip was artificially manipulated by the entry operators in collusion with the brokers to pass on bogus long term capital gain/short term capital loss to the interested parties including assessee to launder their

New Leaf Home P.Ltd, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-18(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2485/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15 New Leaf Home P. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-18(2) House No. 352, New Delhi. Sector-21 D, Nit Faridabad, Near Jiva Public School, Faridabad, Haryana, Pin : 121001 Pan Aadcn7291C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anita Meena, Sr.DR

Section 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL

Atul Shamji Bharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC- 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2021/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

page no. 20 of the assessment order also placed reliance upon the statement of Shri RK Kedia, i.e. one of the entry operators, recorded on 13/06/2014 during the course of search carried out by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, wherein he admitted to having provided accommodation entries in the aforesaid

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 718/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Mohan Thankurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 713/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 712/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 711/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 710/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Mohan Thakurdas Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 709/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Cirle - 5(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for assessment year 2014 – 15 also

ITA 2089/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pradip Kapasi CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade CIT DR

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Lokenath Investment Consultants P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2206/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharatlokenath Investment Consultants P. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Central Circle 8, 2Nd Floor, 19, Local Complex, New Delhi. Near Pushpa Bhawan, Madangir, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabcl5792L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nimisha Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2023 Date Of Order : 16.11.2023

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR

Section 37

assessee company is a paper company and has been utilised for channelizing the unaccounted funds of M/s. Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Generally the entry operators charge 2-3% of total entry-value as commission, the assessee company has not shown this income in the relevant A.Y. The assessee company

Sanjay Madanraj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssanjay Madanrajshah, Acit – 32(3) 316, New Link Way Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate, Near Chincholi Bkc Complex, Vs. Fire Brigade, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajcps1858H (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj kumar Sinha.DR

Section 68Section 69C

First Appellate Authority (FAA) erred in upholding the addition made by the A.O without any basis, on account of ITA.No.1502/Mum/2023. Sanjay Madanraj Shah.Mumbai entry operators charge of Rs. 4,47,544/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend

ITO Ward - 21(1), New Delhi vs. Real Tree Developers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 877/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Ito Real Tree Developers Pvt. Ward- 21(1) Ltd. 570/2, Gf, Firni Road, New Delhi Vs. Village Mundka, Near Metro Station, New Delhi Pan No.Aaacj2721J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Respondent By Ms. Khshboo Goel, Ca Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-7, New Delhi Dated 11.11.2019 Pertaining To A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :-

Pawansut Holding Ltd. admitted the fact that they are directors only for the namesake. Further, it also revealed that Shri Pradeep Kumar Jindal, (entry operator) has used the bank accounts of these dummy director Shri Laxman Singh Satyapal as well. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in failing

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Electrical & Electronics India Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 6923/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit Electrical & Electronics Central Circle-13 India Ltd. New Delhi Vs. Business Communication Centre, 21 Parsi Church Street, Opp. 18 Ezra Street, Kolkata West Bengal - 700001 Pan No.Aaace5419J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Ca Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi Dated 27.08.2018 Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Grievance Of The Revenue Read As Under :- 1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition To Rs.5,63,34,120/- U/S 56(2)(Viia) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.16,06,000/-On Account Of Business Loss Incurred On Sales Of Shree Shaleen Taxtiles Ltd. 3. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Hon'Ble Cit(A) Is Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,59,777/-On Account Of Business Loss On The Valuation Of Shares Of M/S Cressanda Solution Ltd. 4. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Not Tenable In Law & On Facts. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter Or Amend Any/All Of The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of The Hearing Of The Appeal.

Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viia)

name of this company was in the list of the Directorate of Investigation and this company was used for arranging accommodation entries by the entry operators for providing exempt income or desired losses to set off from taxable income. 9. Taking a leaf out of the investigation report ... penny stock company. There is no evidence brought on record to show that the assessee purchased loss by paying cash to the alleged entry operators. We do not find any error or infirmity in allowing the loss of Rs.159777/- by the CIT(A). Further the loss of Rs.1606000/- is only

ITO, War4D-19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Engineering Services P.Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 4774/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 68

Builders (India) Ltd. 11. With regard to the statement of Sh. Pankaj Agarwal, who is controlling M/s Sopan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. The entry operator has been investigated by Investigation Wing, Kolkata and has admitted on oath that he is in the business of providing accommodation entries to various beneficiaries

ITO, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4773/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 68

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Puja Synthetics Private Limited, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 87/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 115JSection 153ASection 263

family members, relative and friends of promoters group, not from Praveen Kumar Jain and any other 22 DCIT vs. Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. entry operators. Assessee has received Rs. 30 per share premium from the one of alleged controlled entity of Praveen Kumar Jain against the face value

Priya Mohan Gurnani, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 719/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 10Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

also conducted on Shri Vipul Vidhur Bhatt on 5/2/2016, who in a statement under section 132 (4) has categorically stated that he is an entry operator. He is operating sunrise Asian limited as a bogus, paper entity and this company is used by him for providing bogus long-term capital ... that the factual position of the transaction shows that the transaction is entered into with the entities controlled, managed and used by the hawala entry operator. The assessee has not denied the facts on the record that the company is one of the bogus companies of Mr. Bhatt. There