“sundry creditors”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 681,806 judgments

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

ITA 4064/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

part-BS | As per Audited BS | |---|---| | Proprietor Capital | | 0 | | 87,97,128 | | Fixed Asset | | 23,74,61,397 | | 21,26,589 | | Sundry Creditors | | 26,90,53,227 | | 15,44,82,855 | | Loan and Advances | | 1,89,62,098 | | 0 | The assessee was asked vide notice ... Part-BS | As per Audited BS | |---|---| | Proprietor Capital | 0 | 87,97,128 | | Fixed Asset | 23,74,61,397 | 21,26,589 | | Sundry Creditors | 26,90,53,227 | 15,44,82,855 | | Loan and Advances | 1,89,62,098 | 0 | The assessee was asked vide notice

DEEPANSHU SRIVASTAVA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD

ITA 4063/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144B

Audited Report in 3CD for the A.Y. 2021-22. | Proprietor Capital | 0 | 87,97,128 | | Fixed Asset | 23,74,61,397 | 21,26,589 | | Sundry Creditors | 26,90,53,227 | 15,44,82,855 | | Loan and Advances | 1,89,62,098 | 0 | The assessee was asked vide notice

GLOBAL STAINLESS,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-34(1), DELHI

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3990/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Global Stainless, Vs. Acit, 17, Meera Tower, Ground Floor, Circle-34(1), Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 052. Pan: Aajfg7209G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy:

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

account of the two creditors in the books of account of the assessee were furnished before him. The confirmations/bank accounts, e-mail ids of sundry creditors for the impugned transactions being unsecured loans amounting to Rs.3,33,00,000/- and Rs.2,58,21,000/- from M/s Steel Impex

ITO, LUDHIANA vs. ARUN GUPTA, LUDHIANA

ITA 112/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Krinwant Sahay, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.112/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Arun Gupta बनाम/ Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar 1698 – New Shakti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 Ludhiana, Punjab - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abkpg-4933-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates) ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Krinwant Sahay () This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi, Dated 04.12.2024, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2021-22. The Revenue Has Challenged The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Setting Aside The Assessment Order To The File Of The Assessing Officer For Fresh Adjudication.

For Appellant: Sh. B.M. Monga & Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocates)For Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 251Section 68Section 69C

being unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of 25% of the unverified Sundry Creditors and the assessee had failed to furnish any explanation on this issue during the course of assessment proceedings. 6. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... additions totaling Rs. 5,26,42,644/-, which included a 25% disallowance of unverified purchases of Rs. 4,13,73,219/-, 25% disallowance of sundry creditors of Rs. 39,75,425/- and debtors of Rs. 39,43,312/- as unexplained cash credits, and further additions regarding unexplained unsecured loans

AMBE MARBLE,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(1), DELHI, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4722/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhir Kumar & Sh. Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Ambe Marble Ito Ward 36(1) Delhi New C/O B-50 Lgf South Vs Delhi Extension Part-Ii, New Delhi Pan No. Abbfa5852G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Pg.793) (xii) Copy of month wise chart of the sales made during the year under consideration (Pg.795-810) (xiii) Copy of details of sundry Creditors (pg.369) (xiv) Copy of confirmation by the sundry creditors (Pg.375- 381 & Pg.384-404) (xv) Copy of the date wise chart of the purchase (party Name, address

RAGHANI TRADELINK,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1692/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1692/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Raghani Tradelink The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ B-239, 2Nd Floor, Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Sumeel Business Park-3 Ahmedabad Sarangpur B/H. New Cloth Market Ahmedabad – 380 002 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aavfr 9778 D (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

oblige.” 4.2. The assessee also furnished details of addition to fixed assets, expenses debited in P/L account, details of loans and advances, details of sundry creditors, details of current liabilities and copy of partnership deed was furnished by the assessee. 5. However, the AO observed that though the assessee

QMIN INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1777/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer specifically asked upon the assessee to furnish details and supporting documentary evidence in respect of sundry creditors and trade payables reflected in the books of account. In response to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished details ... could not be applied to trade payables and that the Assessing Officer had initially proposed disallowance of only 10% of the difference in sundry creditors in the show cause notice but finally the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire amount which was arbitrary and unjustified

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3991/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

dismissed. 5. Ground nos. 3 and 4 relates to addition made u/s.41(1). In this regard, ld. Assessing Officer called for details of sundry creditors pending for more than three years along with reasons therefor. Assessee furnished a list of 49 creditors having an aggregate balance of Rs.5

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3971/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 41(1)Section 801C

AMAN THUKRAL,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

Accordingly, Additional Ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical

ITA 886/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Bhalla, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Mangal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250(6)Section 69C

failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has wrongly made an addition of Rs, 2,46,55,516 being 25% the alleged unverified sundry creditors of Rs. 9,86,22,465 on flimsy grounds without properly appreciating the details, documentary evidence and submissions furnished by the appellant. 8.1 Without prejudice ... respect of certain purchases, disallowed a portion of commission expenses, salaries and wages and car expenses and also made an addition on account of sundry creditors, thereby determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 9,87,11,740/-. 886-CHD-2024 7 8. Aggrieved by the assessment order

SANJAY KUMAR YADAV,DELHI vs. CIT APPEAL, DELHI

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

ITA 5825/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2022-23 Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Vs. Assessment Unit, 7802, Arakshan Road, Income-Tax Department Swami Ram Tirth Nagar, Paharganj, New Delhi – 110 055. Pan: Aarpy8996L

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Kumar Goenka, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

Bank balances 3,97,640/- 6. Disallowed the PF payment 4,175/- 7. Unexplained expenditure 27,28,128/- 8. Difference in payment to sundry creditors 6,06,77,465/- 9. Unexplained Unsecured loans from others 46,42,000/- 10. Unexplained Advances recoverable in cash or in 21,42,000/- kind

MICROTEK INFRASTRUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3112/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year:2020-21]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 68

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 89,14,186/- on account of disallowance of sundry creditors u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961" as the assessee had failed to furnish the copy of account & confirmation of the said transaction during ... justification and supporting evidences/purchase register/ confirmation etc while accepting your contention. 3.1. On perusal of Balance Sheet, it was noticed that assessee had shown sundry creditors to the tune of Rs. 7,79,15,547/- as on 31.03.2020, During the course of assessment proceedings, the FAO has accepted the contention

EAST DELHI LEASING P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 7917/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

ITA No. 7917/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

BINABEN JAYESHBHAI GOR,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1, VAPI, VAPI

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

ITA 1456/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2012-13

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)Section 272A(1)(b)Section 69A

noticed from the assessment order that the assessee did furnish copy of balance-sheet, profit & loss account, list of loans and advances, sundry creditors and other details before the AO. It was explained by the assessee that the cash deposit represented advances received from customers. However, no evidence in this

KABEL METAL POWER CABLES LTD,THANE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5299/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhujhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR

Section 115BSection 144Section 154Section 41(1)Section 69C

delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Appeal of the assessee relates to addition made u/s. 41(1) in respect of sundry creditors. Ld. Assessing Officer, for want of details has applied 5% of the total outstanding creditors appearing in the balance sheet to make an addition which

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4244/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 135Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80JSection 92C

made by the Assessing Officer, the learned DR relied upon the findings of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assessee had written back sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 12,43,28,110/- during the year under consideration but failed to offer the same to tax. It was submitted that

JAFFER ALI NASEEMA BEGUM,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, NCW-3(1), COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2819/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2819/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha. CIT

Section 144Section 144ASection 250

very less profit as compared to the business turnover of the assessee. The A.O called on the assessee to furnish the details of sundry creditors, loan details, details of sundry debtors etc. after perusal of various detailed submitted by the assessee, the A.O concluded the assessment by making the following ... additions: 1. Difference in sundry creditors – Rs. 60,11,752/- 2. Undisclosed sundry debtors – Rs. 5,34,13,590/- 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee before the CIT(A) submitted that the books of accounts furnished by the assessee during assessment proceedings

GIRISH RAGHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6955/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blegirish Raghavan, Acit 26(1), 201-B Eternia, 1, Mumbai Vs. Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai 400 076. Pan : Ahcpr2792R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

payable by the assessee.” 3. The AO has noticed that an amount of Rs.2,04,71,565/- shown as payable under the head ‘Sundry Creditors’ was outstanding since assessment year 2012-13. In such circumstances, the appellant was asked to furnish the details of the transaction entered with the said

SHREE NATH KRIPA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, NOKHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO, WARD, NOKHA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for the statistical purpose

ITA 198/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleshree Nath Kripa Foods Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ito, Ward F-41 & F-42, Riico Industrial Bikaner Area, Nokha, Bikaner - 334803 Pan No. Aamcs 9124 Q Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca (Physical) Revenue By Shri Lalit Kumar Bishnoi, Addl. Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 30.01.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2016-17 Challenging Therein The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) Ex-Parte In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice.

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144cSection 92CSection 92E

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. AO has grossly erred by making lumsum addition of Rs. 300000/- from the balances of sundry creditors without any specific finding but simply on surmises and conjecture concluded that few creditors not named could not be verified for want of complete details

DCIT, CENTRAL -4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. RAJESH AUTO MERCHANDISE PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 2610/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

Showing 1–20 of 1,806 · Page 1 of 91

...