Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT

113 ITD 377Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#1170 most cited

What is Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT authority for?

The assessee must explain the nature and source of any sum credited in their accounts, including bank statements, and mere book entries or banking channels without financial capacity are insufficient to prove genuineness under Section 68. The case also holds that wrong quoting of a section is not fatal to proceedings, emphasizing substance over form.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT · Section 68 · Section 69A · cash credits · unexplained money · assessee's onus of proof · genuineness of transactions · bank statements as books · wrong section quoted not fatal · substance over form · financial capacity · Special Bench ITAT

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 110peak credit theorysurvey under section 133atrade creditorspanchnamasection 250(4)on-moneysection 271aloose paperssection 131(1a)reopening of assessmentaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 910/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 944& 945/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of cuke Smt. Kusum Devi Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle, Vijayvargiya, Near Ram Ajmer Mandir, Chhabra Colony, Behind Bus Stand, Madanganj- Kishangarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIGPV 4323 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vih…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 909/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 944& 945/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of cuke Smt. Kusum Devi Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle, Vijayvargiya, Near Ram Ajmer Mandir, Chhabra Colony, Behind Bus Stand, Madanganj- Kishangarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIGPV 4323 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vih…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 908/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 944& 945/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of cuke Smt. Kusum Devi Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle, Vijayvargiya, Near Ram Ajmer Mandir, Chhabra Colony, Behind Bus Stand, Madanganj- Kishangarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIGPV 4323 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vih…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 907/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ]U;kf;d lnL; ,oaJh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 944& 945/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11& 2011-12 Asstt. Commissioner of cuke Smt. Kusum Devi Vs. Income-tax, Central Circle, Vijayvargiya, Near Ram Ajmer Mandir, Chhabra Colony, Behind Bus Stand, Madanganj- Kishangarh LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AIGPV 4323 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vih…

The Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd., Gorakhpur vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 13/VNS/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…68 of the Act, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade creditors could be added u/s 68 of the Act has been examined by various courts. The Five member special bench of ITAT has held in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT (113 ITD 377) as under on this issue:- “The argument that section 68 is not applicable where an asset is sold and the sale proceeds are credited in the books of account cannot be accepted having regard to the settled legal position that it is always for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account. The section doe…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gorakhpur vs. The Mahabir Jute Mills Limited, Gorakhpur

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 217/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…68 of the Act, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade creditors could be added u/s 68 of the Act has been examined by various courts. The Five member special bench of ITAT has held in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT (113 ITD 377) as under on this issue:- “The argument that section 68 is not applicable where an asset is sold and the sale proceeds are credited in the books of account cannot be accepted having regard to the settled legal position that it is always for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account. The section doe…

DCIT, Gorakhpur vs. M/S Mahabir Jite Mills, Ltd., Gorakhpur

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 448/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…68 of the Act, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade creditors could be added u/s 68 of the Act has been examined by various courts. The Five member special bench of ITAT has held in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT (113 ITD 377) as under on this issue:- “The argument that section 68 is not applicable where an asset is sold and the sale proceeds are credited in the books of account cannot be accepted having regard to the settled legal position that it is always for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account. The section doe…

The Mahabir Jute Mills Limited, Gorakhpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Gorakhpur

In the result, (i) the appeal of the assessee for AY 2009-10 is partly allowed and for AY 2020-21 is treated as allowed

ITA 351/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi16 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 4Section 40A(3)

…68 of the Act, but under some other section of the Act. 8.5 The question whether unpaid trade creditors could be added u/s 68 of the Act has been examined by various courts. The Five member special bench of ITAT has held in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT (113 ITD 377) as under on this issue:- “The argument that section 68 is not applicable where an asset is sold and the sale proceeds are credited in the books of account cannot be accepted having regard to the settled legal position that it is always for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account. The section doe…

Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, assessee`s appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 450/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.450/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) Viral Lavjibhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-18, Naginawadi Society, Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Aaykar Sumul Dairy Road, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Opp. Surat – 395004. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alvpp2897E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

…laced on following case laws wherein under identical facts, cheque discounting activity has been taken into consideration and entire cash/cheque deposit has not been regarded as income and only percentage (%) of profit has been taxed:  Manoj Agarwal V DCIT - 113 ITD 377 (Del)  DCIT V Anil J. Kothari - ITA No. 2645/Ahd/2013  ITO V Mahesh T. Patel - ITA no. 2285/Ahd/2015/Srt  Rohit Pravinchandra Panwala - IT (SS) A no. 608 to 612/Ahd/2010  ITO V Rajpal Singh Shekhawat - ITA No. 1399/Ahd/2011 In the above cases, only % of commission ranging from 0.15% to 0.50% of total amount was held to be taxable. 18. It was…

Chand Monammad, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 340/JPR/2022[2012-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Aug 2023AY 2012-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Kataria, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…trolled and operated by the assessee as the turnover of the accommodation entry business and commission income has to be estimated thereon. -Other case laws: DCIT vs. Siddhartha Enterprises ITA No. 374/Rjt/2017 dt.29-6-2022 (PB 43-49) Manoj Aggarwal vs. DCIT 113 ITD 377 (Del) (Tri) (PB 82-92) Therefore considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, evidences on record and conduct of the department the addition made are unsustainable in the eyes of the law and hence the same deserves to be deleted.’’ 25 SHRI CHAND MOHAMMAD VS ITO, WARD 1(3), AJMER Alternatively and without prejudice to above, only com…

Vijay Anandbhai Chavda, Gondal vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is hereby dismissed

ITA 117/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 144Section 263Section 68

…le to demonstrate the fact that the amounts represented opening balances / trade creditors. Further, various Courts and Tribunals have held that the same cannot be the subject matter of additions u/s 68 of the Act. In the case of Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Delhi Special Bench), the ITAT made the following observations: Thus, there is marked difference between a credit representing a liability payable by the assessee and a credit representing monies I.T.A No. 117/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 5 Shri Vijay Anandbhai Chavda vs. Pr. CIT received from another person. It is because of this distinctio…

Corus Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot24 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

…ee had made payments to shell companies and therefore the Assessing Officer was bound to enquire whether the payments made by the assessee to shell companies are genuine or not. Further, the ld. Departmental Representative relied on the case of Manoj Agrawala 113 ITD 377 (Delhi) SB to the effect that quoting of wrong section is not fatal to the order which has otherwise been passed correctly. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that the aforesaid issue on the basis of which proceedings u/s 263 of the Act proceedings were initiated, was duly examined by the Assess…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 34, 35, 36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 34, 35, 36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k…

Puttappa T.K, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 547/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. M.R. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R

…pressed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court would get support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A Govindarajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807), which has been explained by the five member Special bench of ITAT in the case of Manoj Agarwal (113 ITD 377) as under:- “26. The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee before us was that the assessee was nut maintaining any books of account and the deposits were found only in the assessee's bank statement which cannot be considered as the books of account of the assessee and, therefore, Section 68 was not applicable. Our attention was drawn to the…

Carlson Hospitality Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4192/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 68

…nd paid these parties from the banking channels. The Ld. AR further relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in case of CIT Vs. Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd (I2010-TIOL-583-HC-Del-IT) as well as the decision of the Tribunal in case of Manoj Aggarwal (113 ITD 377 Delhi (SB).The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of Zazsons Export Ltd. Vs. CIT (2017) 88 Taxman.com 617 and also relied on Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in case of CIT Vs. Kishori Lal Construction Ltd. Without prejudice to these submissions, the Ld. AR further submitted that in Financial Year 2013-…

Smt Madhu Solanki, Mysore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 974/BANG/2009[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2021AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessmentyear:1998-99

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, D.R
Section 133ASection 147Section 68

…addition of outstanding trade creditors u/s 68 of the Act. The question whether unpaid trade creditors could be added u/s 68 of the Act has been examined by various courts. The Five member special bench of ITAT has held in the case of Manoj Agarwal vs. DCIT (113 ITD 377) as under on this issue:- “The argument that section 68 is not applicable where an asset is sold and the sale proceeds are credited in the books of account cannot be accepted having regard to the settled legal position that it is always for the assessee to explain the nature and source of the sums credited in his books of account. The section do…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed and Revenue’s

ITA 5877/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2004-05] M/S Ikea Trading (India) Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), C-16, Second Floor, C-Block Market, New Delhi Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent] & [Assessment Year: 2004-05] Dcit, Circle 11(1), Room No. 312, Vs. M/S Ikea Trading (India) Cr Building, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd. C-16, Second Floor, C- Block Market, Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)

…pinion the lower authorities were not at all justified in making the addition of the balance outstanding as on 31.3.2004. Our view is fortified by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘A’ (Special Bench) in the case of Manoj Aggarwal vs. Dy. CIT (Delhi) (SB)113 ITD 377 and the relevant part thereof read as under:- “177. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides. We are unable to subscribe to the contention of Mr. Sudershan Kapoor, the learned counsel for one of the interveners that where an entry has been made in the books of account of the assessee as required by the VDIS of 1997, section 6…

Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed and Revenue’s

ITA 5568/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla & Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2004-05] M/S Ikea Trading (India) Private Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 11(1), C-16, Second Floor, C-Block Market, New Delhi Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent] & [Assessment Year: 2004-05] Dcit, Circle 11(1), Room No. 312, Vs. M/S Ikea Trading (India) Cr Building, New Delhi Pvt. Ltd. C-16, Second Floor, C- Block Market, Pashchimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi – 110 057 (Pan : Aaaci1483Q) [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)

…pinion the lower authorities were not at all justified in making the addition of the balance outstanding as on 31.3.2004. Our view is fortified by the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench ‘A’ (Special Bench) in the case of Manoj Aggarwal vs. Dy. CIT (Delhi) (SB)113 ITD 377 and the relevant part thereof read as under:- “177. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides. We are unable to subscribe to the contention of Mr. Sudershan Kapoor, the learned counsel for one of the interveners that where an entry has been made in the books of account of the assessee as required by the VDIS of 1997, section 6…

Himalayan Dairies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 11(3), New Delhi

ITA 3361/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishihimalayan Dairies Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Flat No. 10, C-1/2, Model Town, Ward-11(3), New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaach0252J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

…with a credit entry of a financial transaction involving receipt of money so there is no scope of applicability of Section 68 of the IT Act. Reliance is placed on Decision of the Special Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Manoj Agarwal Vs DCIT reported as 113 ITD 377 wherein the Tribunal had explained the difference between the receipt of any sum for the purpose of Section 68 of the I T Act 1961 versus the liability to pay amount representing outstanding purchase consideration. The AO erred in equating amount due on account of purchase i.e. outstanding purchase price with sum credited i.e. receipt of money so…