“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

Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

Further, the authorities below have not pointed out any evidence on record to hold that the assessee has obtained bogus entries in connivance with entry operators and brokers etc., in order to claim bogus LTCG. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the assessee was not given an opportunity

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Br. Baskaran & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2104/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Deepak Srichand Bathija बिधम/ Nfac, Delhi 5-B, Elegant Apartment, 3 Room No. 356, Cr Vs. Sobhani Road, Colaba, Building, New Delhi. Mumbai-400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapb6001A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri H. S. Raheja Revenue By: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Of Ay. 2014-15 On 30.07.2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.42,24,780/-. Thereafter, The Case Of The Assessee Was Taken Up For Scrutiny By Issuing Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) On 18.09.2015. The Ao During Assessment Proceedings Noted That Assessee Is Involved In The Business Of Finance & Brokerage & Derives Income From Business, Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) & Other Sources. The Ao Noted That Assessee Has Earned Ltcg Of Rs.32,09,789/- From Sale Of Shares & Payment Was Received From His Share Broker. & Out Of This Rs.19,23,000/- Was Earned As Ltcg From Sale Of Shares Between 12.11.2013 To 16.12.2013 Of M/S. Kailash Auto

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. AR)

Section 143(2)

took note of the Investigation Report of Directorate of Investigation Kolkata as well as the SEBI interim order dated 29.03.2016 against certain entry operators in respect of transaction in scrip of M/s. KAFL, wherein the SEBI opined that certain operators were involved in rigging the price of this share whereby ... suspicious rise of share prices as well as taking note of the statement 5 A.Y. 2014-15 Deepak Srichand Bathija given by entry operators, SEBI interim order dt 29.03.2016 and investigation report against the scrip M/s KAFL, the AO was of the opinion that the assessee’s LTCG claim

Deepak Srichand Bathija, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri H. S. RahejaFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chogule (Sr. AR)

Section 129Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)

statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the on 09.02.2016 on oath, Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt had admitted that he is an entry operator and all those mentioned entities ‘companies are bogus entities/companies, which are used by him for providing various bogus accommodation entries to various beneficiaries for commission and that ... Intech Ltd. is being traded in the Bombay Stock Exchange @ 32.50/- per share. Therefore, according to the Ld. AR, based upon purported statement of entry operators or some unscrupulous person who have indulged in rigging the price of the shares, innocent persons like assessee who have made a meagre profit

Home Developers Project Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 14, New Delhi

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

ITA 390/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68

crores should not be made on account of accommodation entry taken from Himanshu Verma who has admitted in the statement that he was an entry operator. 6. In its reply the assessee stated that it has received share application money from 10 parties namely :- Date of Receipt Amount ... case of Mehta Parik and company 30 ITR 181. 15. Surprisingly we find that the entire addition is based upon the statement of alleged entry operator Himsanshu Verma but he was never produced for cross-examination. The onus of ensuring his presence was on the AO but even

Arrow Manpower Services (P) Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi

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

ITA 6523/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 234BSection 271

account of the assessee and immediately thereafter, the same were paid to some parties, which goes to prove that the assessee is merely an entry operator doing transactions of receipt of monies and issuance of monies on behalf of third parties. No details of persons from whom monies were received ... that the entire transactions reflected in the said bank statement are mere transactions carried out 4 by the assessee in the capacity of an entry operator. Hence, he proceeded to charge only the commission income on those accommodation entries in the hands of the assessee. This commission income was estimated

M/S. Steering Securities and Finance Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5194/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2023AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 68

only tangible issue pertains to validity of “Reasons recorded for re-opening” of the case. 4. The reasons recorded are as under: “Information about entry operators and their beneficiaries of Delhi has been received from the office of the DIT (Inv.) New Delhi along with detailed report giving working ... entry operators with a list of beneficiaries. After making inquiries the Addl. Directorate Income Tax, Unit-IV of Investigation in their report has established large amount of tax evasion in the transactions between entry operators and the beneficiaries. It is revealed from the list that the assessee company M/s Steering

Mystuc Ekectribucs Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC-4(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5867/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

LTCG by pre-arranged trading in shares of various non-descript listed companies, which are under the control and management of the syndicate of entry operators. 5. In the light of above, the case of assessee was centralized to the charge of DCIT, Central Circle - 4(3) The case ... Shri Kedia manages & arranges sale & purchase of shares in the scrip of assessee company. Further, Shri Natwar Lal Daga, who is also an entry operator based in Mumbai and is, helping Shri Raj Kumar Kedia admitted while replying the Q.21 during the course of his statement recorded on oath

Mukta Agriculture Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(CC)-4(3), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes respectively and both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5778/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri Nishikant Gandhi & VishnuFor Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra (CIT-DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

Dimpal Rajeshkumar Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bharuch

In the result, ground No1 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 14/SRT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69C

Long Term Capital Gain as manipulated income and adding u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit without giving cogent reasons with similar transactions by some entry operators, who have recorded statement on oath u/s 131/133A. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3291/DEL/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2023AY 2003-04

Bench: Or During The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

credits were out of unaccounted income of the appellant and the appellant Page 6 of 8 ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta was not an entry operator, Now the question remains that what was the rate of commission received by the appellant in lieu of providing accommodation entries. In this regard

Iwi Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1572/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 68

doubt. 18. We find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of the assessee’s counsel. We note that except for the statement of the entry operator which was also retracted the addition made by the authorities below is devoid of cogent material. In this regard we note that in similar

Iwi Stationary Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle- 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1571/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 148Section 14ASection 68

Standard Tele Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-24(2), New Delhi

ITA 9761/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh.Anubhav Sharma

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Anubhav Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. As per the information all these companies were controlled and managed by Sh. Anil Agarwal who was the entry operator who in his statement admitted that he is an entry operator and the companies being run by him. He also admitted that these companies are used ... Even otherwise, the material on record suggests that Ld. Tax Authorities have heavily relied the statements of Shri Anil Aggarwal who is an alleged Entry Operator controlling the four tainted entities, Shri Jawahar Lal Kesarwani, Director of M/s. Dingle Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Pankaj Jain, G.M. (marketing & administration

Mrs Sunita Shyam Malpani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 344/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 144ASection 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

possession. It is clear that AO has based his addition u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of statement of the entry operator and information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. However in the statement of entry operator no question was ever put to the entry operator ... companies, through which alleged cash of appellant was routed. On one hand the AO has oral statements/oral evidences in the form of statement of entry operator (never confronted to the appellant); the appellant has rebutted these oral evidences by filing documentary evidences listed above. It is a settled law that

Mr. Mahesh C Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-6, Mumbai

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

ITA 838/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.838/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Mahesh C Shah बिधम/ Cit(A)-6 3Rd Floor, Room No. 10, A B-208, Ramdev Park Chsl, Vs. Chandavarkar Road, Next To Wing, Mittal Court, Sp Mukherjee Garden, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Borivali (West)-400002. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadps1521R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-06, Mumbai Dated 15.03.2019 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Is A Proprietor Of A Firm Named M/S. Haresh Trading Co, Which Is Dealing With Trading Of Electrical Components. The Assessee Had Filed The Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 For Ay. 2009-10 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,09,973/-. Later, The Assessment Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act’) By Issuance Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act After Recording The Reasons. The Ao Noted That He Received Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That During The Relevant Year, The Assessee Had Dealt With Thirteen (13) Parties Who Were Hawala Operators Which Information The Investigation Wing (Dgit) Received

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148

same was re-opened on the basis of information from Sales Tax Department/DGIT(Inv.) that assessee has shown to have dealt with thirteen (13) entry operator (named in assessment order at page-2) amounting to Rs.14,27,139/- and since assessee failed to participate in the assessment proceedings ... that assessee has purchased the goods/electrical goods from the grey market and 7 A.Y. 2009-10 M/s. Mahesh C Shah obtained accommodation bills from entry operators. Therefore, the profit embedded in such sales need only be taxed. It is noted that since assessee is trading in electrical component, reasonable estimate

Sankpal Developers, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-25(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1064/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1064/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sankpal Developers बिधम/ Ito, Ward-25(1)(1) 101-104, Haripriya 203, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Apartment, Sundervan Bandra Kurla Complex, Complex, Lokhandwala Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Cross Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abwfs4025Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. Mitali Gopani Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.03.2023 For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Only Grievance Of The Assessee Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.50 Lakhs On Account Of Alleged Bogus Loan Received By The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts, As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income At Rs. Nil. Later, The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. The Ao Noted That He Received Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Choudhary, Shri Dharmichand Jain [Alleged Entry Operators] & Their Group Entities Are Providing Accommodation Entries Inter-Alia In The Nature Of Unsecured Loans & That Assessee Is Also A Beneficiary Of Such Activity. According To The Ao, The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah/Ms. MitaliFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)

Section 68

CASS. The AO noted that he received information from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that Shri Rajendra Jain, Shri Sanjay Choudhary, Shri Dharmichand Jain [alleged entry operators] and their group entities are providing accommodation entries inter-alia in the nature of unsecured loans and that assessee is also a beneficiary ... loans to the tune of Rs.50 Lakhs from M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “M/s. Nazar”) which according to AO was operated by these entry operators (supra). So, the AO confronted, the assessee to prove the un-secured loan from M/s. Nazar. Pursuant thereto, assessee filed (i) copy

Spectrum Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 34/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 33 & 34/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Spectrum Infonet Private Limited 601, South Gajanandpuram Colony, Kotra Road, Raigarh (C.G.)-496001 Pan : Aalcs5656E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

with dummy directors, viz. S/Shri Ashis Kumar (PAN: ANMPK1331K) and Rahul Sharma (PAN : AWSPS8620A) who were under the control and management of an infamous entry operator Shri Dinesh Dhandhania, had rendered his order as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue ... company having director Shri Ashis Kumar(PAN-ANMPK1331K) and Shri Rahul Sharma (PAN-AWSPS8620A) are dummy directors under the control and management by identified entry operator Shri Dinesh Dhandhana. It is apparent from materials on record that there was no business rationale with the credited sum which was received from

Spectrum Infonet Pvt. Ltd., Raigarh vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 33/RPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri V.K Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 263

Radha Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3437/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Imposing Tax On Assessee. The Action Of Authorities Below Is Wrong, Illegal, Bad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Beenu, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 69C

authority, withdrawn their claim and filed revised return offering such LTCG for taxation. 4 ITA No.3437/Del./2019 vii) In the statements recorded of brokers, entry operators, directors of paper companies that has bought these shares, directors of Penny stock companies all confess to such a scheme with detailed modus operandi ... Further such accommodation entry is taken by payment of certain percentage of commission in cash as also admitted and explained by various entry operators who provided such entries. Hence, 3% towards commission charged for providing the bogus long term capital gain of Rs.60,56,777/- i.e. Rs.1

Agroha Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2859/DEL/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargagroha Fincap Ltd, Vs. Ito, C-51, Mahendru Enclave Gt Ward-1(4), Karnal Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaaca8075G

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 68

share capital/ share premium received from M/s Mani Mala Delhi Pro. Pvt. Ltd. by holding the same as received from Agroha Fincap Ltd alleged entry operator is illegal and unsustainable in law as well as on merits. 4.1 That in the absence of providing copies of all material used against ... under section 68 for the share capital/share premium received from M/s Vrigin Capital Services (9) Ltd. by holding the same as received from alleged entry operator is illegal and unsustainable in law as well as on merits. 5.1 That in the absence of providing copies of all material used against