← 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

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result of the Revenue Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1722/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1722/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Comm Of Income M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Tax Central Circle Ltd Mumbai 5(1) Mumbai 3Rdfloor, Titanic Bldg, बिधम/ Room No.1928, Chandivali Farm Road, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Malegaon, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra 400072 Maharashtra,400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ : Shri Madhur Agarwal Appellant By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar. By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

persons admitting that these companies were indulged in giving accommodation entries, abnormal rise in prices over short period, cash trails in the accounts of entry operators etc. 3 I.T.A. No. 1722/Mum/2022 M/s Arch pharmalabs Ltd. 4. On facts and in circumstances of the case ... trading of very few shares. Further, the AO observed that rise of share price was artificially accorded by rigging of share trading by the entry operator and thus, the loss and gain was artificially generated. Therefore, the AO in the re- assessment order u/s 147 has made addition in respect

ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane

In the result, the appeal of revenue as well as cross-objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2993/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ito-11(1)(2) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Room No.202, Aayakar Limited Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Marg, C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Mumbai-400020. Apartments, Taki Road, Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. Cross Objection No. 162/Mum/2019 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2993/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) M/S. Realstone Exports बिधम/ Ito-11(1)(2) Limited Room No.202, Aayakar Vs. C-204, 2Nd Floor, Vishal Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Apartments, Taki Road, Mumbai-400020. Tulij, Nallasopara (E), Thane, Maharashtra- 401209. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr8504K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. H. Usmani (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross-Objection (Co) Of The Assessee Are Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai Dated 25.01.2017 For A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. H. Usmani (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 68

which is in respect providing accommodation bill or entry. 41. As stated in the preceding paragraph, it is common knowledge that for providing accommodation entries, operators charge certain percentage of the quantum of transaction shown as their fees/ commission from the beneficiaries. In the facts of the case, it would ... director of assessee’s group of companies) to the sales tax department, wherein he admitted that the assessee company is also engaged as an entry operator for beneficiaries in lieu of commission (not into genuine purchase/sales of any goods/products). Based on this information and the infirmities 8 C.O. 162/Mum/2019 A.Ys