← 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

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1414/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’) in the premises of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (entry operator) on 01.10.2013 (AY. 2014- 15), it was found that assessee company was also one of the group companies controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Pursuant

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1413/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’) in the premises of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (entry operator) on 01.10.2013 (AY. 2014- 15), it was found that assessee company was also one of the group companies controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Pursuant

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1412/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’) in the premises of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (entry operator) on 01.10.2013 (AY. 2014- 15), it was found that assessee company was also one of the group companies controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Pursuant

Yash -V-Jewels Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1411/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’) in the premises of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (entry operator) on 01.10.2013 (AY. 2014- 15), it was found that assessee company was also one of the group companies controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Pursuant

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1410/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’) in the premises of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (entry operator) on 01.10.2013 (AY. 2014- 15), it was found that assessee company was also one of the group companies controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Pursuant

M/S. Yash-V-Jewels Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

ITA 1409/MUM/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 1409 To 1415/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2008-09 To 2014-15) Yash-V-Jewels Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-1(1) Room No. 903, 9Th Floor, Office No. 501, Adibaba Vs. Apartment, Gazdar Scheme, Pratishtha Bhavan, (Old Cgo 16Th Floor, Near Rajesh Building (Annexe) M. K. Khanna Garden, Santacruz- Road, Mumbai-400020. West-400054. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacy1119P (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By: Dr. Kishore Dhule (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)45, Mumbai Dated 22.02.2023 For Ay. 2008-09 To 2015-16. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Brought To Our Notice That The Issue Raised In All The Captioned Appeals Are Similar (Except Difference In Sum/Figures). This Contention Of Ld. Ar Could Not Be Controverted By The Ld. Dr. Therefore, We Are Inclined To Take Up The Appeals Of Assessee For Ay. 2008-09 As Lead Case For Adjudication & The Decision In The Appeal I.E. Ay. 2008-09 Would Cover Other Appeals & Will Be Followed For Other Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishore Dhule (DR)
Section 132Section 145Section 153C

search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act’) in the premises of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain (entry operator) on 01.10.2013 (AY. 2014- 15), it was found that assessee company was also one of the group companies controlled by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Pursuant