“sundry creditors”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 681,806 judgments

The decision most relied on for sundry creditors is CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (343 ITR 408), cited in 76 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on sundry creditors

CIT v. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd.

343 ITR 408 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 cannot be made for genuine sundry creditors or trade payables merely carried forward from previous assessment years if there is no fresh credit in the relevant assessment year. Section 41(1) does not apply to acknowledged outstanding liabilities without actual remission or cessation.

CIT v. Pancham Dass Jain

205 CTR 444 · 2006 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 68 of the Income-tax Act is not attracted to amounts representing purchases made on credit or outstanding trade creditors, especially when the genuineness of the purchases is accepted by the department.

CIT v. Prameshwar Bohra

301 ITR 404 · 2008 · High Court

citing judgments

An amount already credited in the books of account in an earlier assessment year cannot be added again as an unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act in a subsequent assessment year.

CIT v. Nitin S. Garg

208 Taxmann 16 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

A trading liability acknowledged and continued to be shown in the balance sheet cannot be treated as cessation of liability under Section 41(1) merely because it remained outstanding for several years, unless the assessee has written it off in its books. The Assessing Officer must prove that the assessee obtained a benefit.

CIT v. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara

43 Taxmann.com 55 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act applies only where there is remission or cessation of a trading liability during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, and not merely because the assessee cannot provide confirmations for sundry creditors.

CIT v. Padamchand Ramgopal

76 ITR 719 · 1970 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Minor irregularities in books of account cannot be the sole basis for rejection of the books or for making an estimated trading addition, especially when the assessee has provided explanations for discrepancies. The case distinguishes itself by focusing on receipts not brought into account rather than expenses claimed.

CIT v. Sita Devi Juneja

325 ITR 593 · 2010 · High Court

citing judgments

A liability cannot be presumed to have ceased to exist merely because it has been outstanding for several years. Without a bilateral act between the assessee and the creditor indicating cessation, additions under section 41(1) are not permissible.

CIT v. Best Wood Industries and Saw Mills

11 Taxmann.com 278 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

Once an assessment is reopened for a valid reason under Section 148(2), the Assessing Officer can bring to tax any escaped income that comes to their notice during the reassessment, even if it was not the original basis for reopening.

Judgments citing sundry creditors

M/S. H & F Games Pvt. Ltd., Bellandur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle - 1(2), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15

ITA 1551/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Balram Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Balusamy N, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

Further the AO noted from the financial statements submitted by the Director during the scrutiny proceedings that the assessee has sundry creditors in the balance sheet and assessee has paid interest on such creditors without deducting TDS and claimed expenditure on return filed manually on Page

Pankaj Automobiles Private Limited, G.T Road, Moga vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Ferozepur

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

ITA 238/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, C. A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

explanation by the assessee regarding (i) allowability of bad debts of Rs.14.60 crores debited to profit and loss account (ii) on account of unexplained sundry creditors amounting to Rs.3.03 crores (iii) on account of claim of loss of Rs.1.44 crores by fire and (iv) claim of unestablished trade discount

Veer Projects, Raipur vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur

ITA 654/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 654/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 250Section 68

Disallowances as discussed above u/s 68 of the Act and taxable at special Rate u/s 115BBE 1. Unsecured Loan 2,63,43,671 1. Sundry Creditors 2,56,47,012 Total assessed Income Rs.6,70,06,800 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid additions, assessee preferred an appeal before

Income Tax Officer, New Libra Kothi, Railway Road, Sirhind vs. Bhagwan Dass, Amloh Road, Mandi Gobindgarh

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1025/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

For Respondent: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs.24,82,734/ under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of Unexplained Sundry Creditors. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing the assessee's claim ... balance sheet, GST returns, bank statements, and certain confirmations. However, the assessee failed to file complete and satisfactory evidences, particularly in respect of two sundry creditors amounting to Rs. 24,82,734/-, whose confirmations were filed without PAN details and pertained to outstanding balances of the preceding year. The assessee

Raj Kumar Daga HUF, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 30(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/DEL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 250

appeal Nos. 6 to 8 raised by the assessee are with respect to the disallowance of INR 25,35,808/- made on account of sundry creditors. The AO has made the addition of sundry creditors by holding that these are opening balances and no transactions were carried out in their

Raj Kumar Daga HUF, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 30(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 699/DEL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234Section 234ASection 250

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 797/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 797/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Ito Ward 1(3) Shree Balaji Processors बनाम/ Ludhiana – 141001 Tajpur Road, Opp. Central Jail Vs. Ludhiana - 141010 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actfs-8428-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 18-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 23-12-2018 Rejecting Books Of The Assessee & Assessing Business Profit Of Rs.12.81 Crores. The Ld. Cit(A) Reversed The Action Of Ld. Ao Against Which The Revenue Is In Further Appeal Before Us With Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. That The Cit(A), Ludhiana Has Erred In Law, In Deleting Addition Of Rs.12,01,85,191/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

provide copy of cash book. The sales and purchases were not verifiable. The assessee could not file confirmation from 60 out of 67 sundry creditors. On these facts, Ld. AO rejected the books u/s 145(3) and applied net profit rate of 8% on gross receipts and ultimately assessed business ... sales and purchases account. The copy of account for power and fuel was already furnished to Ld. AO. Regarding non-filing of confirmation from sundry creditors, the assessee stated that due to insufficient opportunity, the assessee was not able to file the same during assessment proceedings but nevertheless, the remaining

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Chandmiya Miyajan Qureshi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5172/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2025

Bench: SHRI. OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member), SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil R. PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Virqabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

facts and circumstances of the case, the payment for Sundry creditors/Purchases and the true and correct facts revolving around the said Sundry Creditors and Purchases is as follows: (A) The break-up w.r.t. Sundry Creditors and Purchases is provided as follows: Opening Creditors as on 01/04/2011 ... above Purchases of Rs.4,96,65,628/-debited to Profit and Loss Account the break-up w.r.t. mode of making payment for the Sundry Creditors and Purchases is as under:- i. By Cash Rs. 2,23,131………… 0.31% ii.Bearer Cheques Rs. 7,15,42,282……99.69% iii.Total Payments Made

Thomas Joseph, Karkutty vs. ITO Ward 2, Aluva

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 715/COCH/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm Assessment Year: 2023-24 Thomas Joseph .......... Appellant Matha Book Centre, Karkutty P.O. Ernakulam 683576 [Pan: Afjpp5051N] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aluva ......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri P.J. Babu, Ca Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Babu, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

failure of the appellant to explain the source of expenditure incurred on salary, festival celebration, etc. The AO also made addition on account of sundry creditors of Rs. 46,31,857/- disbelieving the expenses of sundry creditor. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A). who vide ... impugned order partly allowed the appeal confirming the disallowance of sundry creditors and addition of unexplained expenditure. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted that the expenditure was met by the appellant out of realization from debtors

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota vs. Rishiraj Singh, Jhalawar

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1073/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Gupta, CA &For Respondent: Mohd. Azharuddin, CA

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

case, the Ld. CIT(A). NFAC, was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.48,38,133/- made by the AO on account of Sundry Creditors ignoring the fact that the assessee has failed to furnish the details of the creditors alongwith ledgers, confirmations & supporting documents to prove their identity, nature ... submission of the assessee Id. AO made the addition of Rs.1,71,70,816/-. Ld. AO noted that the as per the ITR sundry creditors of Rs. 10,09,60,423/ were reflected in the account of the assessee and therefore, assessee was requested to furnish the details

Simrah Builders, Aligarh vs. DCIT4(1)(1) Aligarh, Aligarh

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

ITA 151/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 251Section 68

passed u/s. 147/144B of suo moto the Act. However, learned CIT(Appeals) enhanced Rs.54,50,000/- shown by the assessee as liability towards sundry creditors balance in respect of M/s. Bharat Construction in assessee’s books. 2. Brief facts state that the assessee did not file its return of income ... unsecured loans from different persons of Rs.13,00,000/-, Rs.1,15,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/-, further adding Rs.3,83,850/- shown against sundry creditors u/s. 68 of the Act, totaling to Rs.29,98,850/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals), who, after assessee’s submissions

Kajal Kumari Seth, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1585/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Kajal Kumari Seth………………...….……………….……….……….……Appellant 1/H/5, Raja Manindra Road, Kol-37.. [Pan: Cstps9220D] Vs. Ito, Ward-45(2), Kolkata….…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri P. J. Bhide, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 29, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 14, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16.05.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee'S Firm 2. Was Engaged In Manufacturing & Trading Mustard Oils & Mustard Seeds Etc. & The Assessee Had Filed Income Tax Return For A.Y. 2014- 15 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,41,700/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under The Faceless Assessment Scheme & During The Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Had Unaccounted Income Of Rs.1,50,44,516/- From Sundry Creditors. Subsequently, A Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated Kajal Kumari Seth 28.08.2015 Was Issued Along With Various Other Notices & The Assessee Failed To Give Satisfactory Reply To The Assessing Officer & Accordingly, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment By Passing Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Act By Assessing Total Income At Rs.1,52,86,216/- Making An Addition Of Rs.1,50,44,516/- U/S 68 Of The Act.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Faceless Assessment Scheme and during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had unaccounted income of Rs.1,50,44,516/- from sundry creditors. Subsequently, A notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax act, 1961 dated Kajal Kumari Seth 28.08.2015 was issued along with various other notices ... appeal before us thereby submitting that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider that the said sum represents the opening balance of sundry creditors which was carried forward from earlier years with no fresh credits recorded to treat these brought-forward balances as income chargeable

Faurecia Emissions Control Technologies India Private Limited, Chennai vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Corporate Circle 1(1) Che, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1223/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1223/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2023-24 Faurecia Emissions Control Assistant Commissioner Of Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Income Tax, 1St Floor, No.634, Karumuthu Center, Corporate Circle-1(1), Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai. Chennai-600 035 [Pan: Aaaca8450F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Siddhesh Chaugula, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Siddhesh Chaugula, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 139Section 139(9)Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)

business or profession and the basis on which such amounts have been computed, and also disclosing the amounts of total sundry debtors, sundry creditors, stock-in-trade and cash balance as at the end of the previous year:] 27[Provided that the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 805/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 805/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit M/S Konark Rajhans Estate Private Limited Panchkula Circle बनाम/ Vs. Nh 73, Village Kot Extension-Ii, Sector 14, Panchkula. Panchkula. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaeck-2405-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)-Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Appeal By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2011- 12 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-05-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 29-12-2018. The Revenue Is Aggrieved By Deletion Of Twin Quantum Additions Of Rs.40.85 Lacs & Rs.707.75 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao In The Assessment Order. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)-Ld. AR

Section 131oSection 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 68o

assessee furnished copy of its Income Tax Return, Audited financial statements for this year reflecting investment in assessee-entity which were sourced out of sundry creditors for Rs.599.86 Lacs. However, Ld. AO held that this entity lacked creditworthiness to extend loan of Rs.5.28 Crores to the assessee. To verify

ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Sikander Daredia, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.604/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019 The Asst. Commissioner Of Sikander Daredia, Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad – 500 014. Vs. Hyderabad – 500 004. Pan Agtpd5466A (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा/Revenue By : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By : Sri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 12.11.2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

For Appellant: Sri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the assessee has produced all the relevant details including books of accounts, details of sundry creditors, audit report, purchases and sales recorded in sales register along with bank account to show that these purchases/sales are made in the ordinary course

DCIT, Circle1(1), Kolkata vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1724/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

export expenses of Rs.2,18,82,543/- and disallowance u/s 68 of the Act on account of difference in opening and closing balance of sundry creditor of Rs.2,09,38,259/-. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) wherein the appeal ... submitted that the assessee was non-cooperative before the Assessing Officer and the assessee was not able to prove regarding the purchases from sundry creditors as genuine. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee’s purchases which require more examination. Therefore, he prayed that

M/S. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1193/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Raviraj Varadharaj, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ncw 8(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application is dismissed

ITA 2468/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2468/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 & S.A. No. 85/Chny/2025 [In Ita No. 2468/Chny/2025] Raviraj Varadharaj, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 16/08, Duraisamy Colony, Non Corporate Ward 8(2), Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106. Chennai. [Pan:Amopv6065A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Swaminathan, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Ground No. A, Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri V. Swaminathan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 41(1)Section 68

purchase made from Tamil Nadu Agro Foods, Vigneshwara Traders, Reshma and Associates and Quad Enterprises. Thus, the Assessing Officer adopted 20% of total sundry creditors and disallowed the same under section 41(1) of the Act vide his reasons recorded in 5 I.T.A. No.2468/Chny/25 & S.A. No. 85/Chny25 para ... assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) reduced to 15% of total sundry creditors as per para 5.2 of the impugned order. 10. The ld. AR vehemently argued that no GST registration is required for exempt goods as purchased from Fortune Agro Foods, Tamil Nadu Agro Foods, Vigneshwara Traders, Reshma

Nirmithi Kendra, Gadag vs. DCIT(Exemptions), Mangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1513/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Omkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 43C

assessee and notice u/s. 142(1) was also issued. The AO on the basis that the assessee had not submitted the details of the sundry creditors and the assessee had not submitted the requisite details and documents in order to estimate the net profit as per the ICDS

ACIT, Circle-3(1), Gurugram vs. Sunil Kumar, Gurugram

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

deleting the addition of Rs. 3,83,71,515/-u/s 41(1) of the Act made by the AO on account of un-substantiated sundry creditors. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition