M/S. U.P. DYEING & PRINTING WORKS,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, MEERUT
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance of job work expenses was not justified without cogent material. It also ruled that no addition was required for sundry creditors pertaining to undisputed purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee firm, engaged in printing handloom cloths, paid Rs. 13,62,813/- for job work. The Revenue disallowed these expenses, deeming them bogus. Additionally, Rs. 6,05,633/- was disallowed as sundry creditors for goods in transit.
What were the issues?
Whether job work expenses are bogus without supporting evidence, and if sundry creditors for undisputed purchases can be added.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Meerut dated 22.03.2017 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Disallowances of expenses of Rs. 13,62,813/-:
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is carrying on the business of printing of handloom cloths and paid an amount of Rs. 13,62,813/- to various printers who were engaged for the job work of printing. Before the AO the assessee filed details of quantity printed, rate and amount. The Revenue disallowed the expenses holding them to be bogus in nature.
M/s. U. P. Dyeing & Printing Works
On going through the record, we find that no reasons have been given by the revenue authorities as to how these expenses are considered as bogus. We hold that no disallowance is called for without bringing any cogent material on record about the non allowability of the expenses. In the result, appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.
Sundry Creditors-Rs. 6,05,633/-:
The amount of Rs. 6,05,633/- has been disallowed by the revenue authorities on the ground that the goods from these parties were in transit and have not been accounted in the books of accounts. The AO not disputed the purchases from the said parties and accepted the trading results. The similar issue has also been matter of adjudication before the Tribunal in in the case of the assessee for AY 2010-11. Since, the issue is on the similar ground, we hold that no addition is called for treating the sundry creditors pertaining to the undisputed purchase of the year. Appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Distributory Committee vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner 1Andhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- Smt. T.Leela vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- Divikolu Subba Rao vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Delhi Tools vs. The Commissioner CGST & Anr.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Priyanshi Enterprises vs. Principal Commissioner Of CGST Delhi North And Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026