“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

Arham Gems and Jewellery, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1) (Old Ward-1(3)(1)), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1087/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1087/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arham Gems & Jewellery The Income Tax Officer C/O. M.S. Chhajed & Co., Ca बनाम/ Ward-1(2)(1) V/S. “Kamal Shanti” [Old Ward-1(3)(1)] Nr.Sardar Patel Statue, Ahmedabad – 380 015 Ahmedabad – 380 014 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aasfa 7013 P (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18-12-2023 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arising From The Order Dated 26/12/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”) U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69ASection 69B

Loss account of the company, bank statement, month-wise sales and purchase register, copies of ledger account of related parties, ledger account of all sundry creditors and debtors exceeding Rs.50,000/-, copy of group summary of expenses, VAT Audit Report, etc. Accordingly, the ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that substantial

Asiatic Enterprises, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw 19(3), Chennai

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1847/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1847/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Asiatic Enterprises Ito बनाम/ # 6, Jones Road, Saidapet, Non-Corporate Ward-19(3) Vs. Chennai-600 015. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaffa-5949-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69

write-off the loss as not recoverable in the current year and hence confirming the disallowance was improper and unjustified. III ESTIMATED ADDITION OF SUNDRY CREDITORS : 10.The CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the estimated addition of the sundry creditors to the extent of the gross profit of assessee. 11.The ... addition treating them as not explained. 12. The CIT(A) NF AC further failed to appreciate that the basis to estimate the addition of sundry creditors by the officer was itself flawed and no further estimate can be made to justify a wrong addition. 13.The CIT(A) NFAC further failed

Smt. Bela Gupta, Jaipur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3, Jaipur

ITA 1178/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: CIT(A) on 6 dates was not deliberate. 4. Learned DR for the department has referred to the impugned order to point out that notices were issued to the assessee while listing the appeal for hearing on 8 dates, but, the appellant did not furnish any response on 6 dates and as regards remaining two dates, simply adjournment was sought. The contention is that the appellant has not furnished any justification for non appearance or non submission of information/evidences before CIT(A), and as suc

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 250

Said addition came to be made by observing that the assessee could not establish in the assessment proceedings genuineness of sundry creditors, as reflected in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2012. When the matter came up before Learned CIT(A), it was listed for hearing there on 8 dates ... findings that the assessee reflected a sum of Rs. 21,27,393/- in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2012, by way of sundry creditors. The assessee, in response to the show cause notices, put forth the plea that the assessee was also proprietor of M/s Gunesh Associates engaged

M/S. Flourish Purefoods Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT., Cent.Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 30/AHD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. No.518/Ahd/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) Flourish Purefoods Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 11-12, Ecs House, Garden View, Tax, Nr. Global Hospital, Bodakdev, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad-380054 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aadcv2683B] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. P. Srivastava, Sr. D.R

Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 32Section 68

cannot be doubted. The amounts so received is actually not a credit in the form of loans or credit or in the form of sundry creditors or any other liability, it is actually the refund of amount advanced in preceding years. It is merely a reduction in debit balance

Ajay Kumar Dua, New Delhi vs. PCIT Circle 61(1) - 12, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3359/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Ajay Kumar Dua, Vs. Pcit, B-3, Defence Colony, Circle-61(1)-12, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aajpd3532B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ved Jain, Advocate Sh. Ayush Garg, Ca Department By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2024 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

accepted. 5. On perusal of return of income filed by assessee for the year under consideration it was observed that the assessee had shown Sundry creditors of Rs.1,34,71,852/- and unsecured loans from others as Rs 4,00,000/- in his retum of Income ... observed from the return of income for AY 2011-12 that the assessee had shown Sundry creditors as Rs. 44,46,000/- and unsecured loans from others of nil in his return of Income. This shows an increase in sundry creditor balance of the assessee by Rs.94

Sh. Taiyab Khan, Jaipur vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar

ITA 342/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288ASection 4Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings also, ld.AO raised a number of queries and sought various details including Unsecured loans, Sundry Creditors, Outstanding liabilities, Cash deposited in bank account, Sundry Debtors, Addition to Fixed Assets, Loans and Advances, Stock Details, details of Purchases, details of other expenses ... further submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings also, ld.AO raised a number of queries and sought various details including Unsecured loans, Sundry Creditors, Outstanding liabilities, Cash deposited in bank account, Sundry 31 Sh. Taiyab Khan vs. ACIT Debtors, Addition to Fixed Assets, Loans and Advances, Stock Details, details

Shivaji Irmali, Thane vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Thane

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3186/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Nclt

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

building material and sale and purchase of land. During the course of scrutiny proceedings, the assessee was asked to submit the details of sundry creditors and loans during the year and the details of payment made to them. The ld. AO noted that there were following liabilities outstanding as opening

Amod Steel Processors, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3), Vadodara (Now DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1)), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1123/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250

return was taken for scrutiny assessment and Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.26,43,324/- being 25% disallowance of the sundry creditors amounting to Rs.1,05,73,297/- and difference in balance with sundry creditors amounting to Rs.17,50,606/-. The assessee also claimed loss of Rs.2 ... assessing total income of the Appellant at Rs. 3,57,59,501 against returned income of Rs. 1,05,75,020, Sundry Creditors - Adhoc Addition of Rs. 26,43,324/-: 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Circle I, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 540/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

observed that where a particular business income of the assessee has been estimated and determined and in such a case certain sundry creditors are found, the AO may be precluded from adding the said unexplained sundry creditors as undisclosed income from the business, the income of which was determined ... estimate basis. But where the unexplained sundry creditors are not referable to the business income of the assessee which was estimated, the AO is not precluded from treating the unexplained sundry creditors as income from other sources such as salaries securities or any others income from a business, the source

Yogesh Ginning Mill, Prop. Yogesh Chand Gupta, Govindgarh vs. ACIT, Alwar

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Paridhi Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gajendra Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

M/S. Sarah Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer -23(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4237/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

same to the total income of the assessee on the ground that assessee has not explained the amount of such rent payable shown as sundry creditors. 4 M/s. Sarah Enterprises A.Y. 2015-16 4. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Nice International Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-13(2), New Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2529/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganeshita No. 2529/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Nice International Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, 194B, Ramesh Market, Ward-13(2), New Delhi-110065 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn9682L Assessee By : Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.12.2024

For Appellant: Sh. Ruchesh Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 68

That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 62,881 being difference in balances of two sundry creditors when compared to confirmation received from the party. The Ld. Commissioner has admitted that the creditors accounts were running accounts and transactions were taking ... accordingly. 4 Nice International Ltd. 8. Learned counsel does not press for the assessee’s third substantive ground of Rs.62,881/- representing difference in sundry creditor balance. Rejected in very terms. 9. Lastly comes the assessee’s fourth substantive ground wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed expenses of Rs.6

Arkis Enterprises Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 5113/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: RespondentFor Respondent: Ms. Pradnya Gholap (Sr. DR)

Section 115JSection 14Section 142Section 143Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 41(1)

upholding the disallowance of Rs. 118981/- made by learned AO U/S. 14A and also upholding addition of Rs. 3962564/-u/s. 41(1) for outstanding sundry creditors. 5. The appellant craves liberty to add, alter, amend any of the grounds of appeal.” Brief facts of the case are as under

Shyamal Kumar Ghosh, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 33(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 1813/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1813/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyamal Kumar Ghosh……………………………………………….…..……Appellant 40, Weston Street, 2Nd Floor, Bowbazar, Kolkata – 700013. [Pan: Adtpg3720F] Vs. Ito, Ward-33(5), Kolkata............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akhil Kumar, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2024 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023 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’). 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Raised Issue Of A Delay Of 198 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Assessee Has Submitted An Application For Condonation Of Delay Citing Valid & Proper Reasons. After Considering The Averments Made In The Application, We Condone The Delay. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring Gross Total Income Of Rs.14,15,352/- & Total Income Of Rs.12,49,520/- After Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A Of The Act. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Response, The Assessee Submitted Profit & Loss A/C, Balance Sheet And

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 68Section 69A

made during the period of demonetization from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The Assessing Officer has issued further notices seeking details of purchase, unsecured loans and sundry creditors and nature of cash deposits. The assessee did not comply and subsequently the Assessing Officer issued notice

Syedali Ebrahim, Neyyattinkara vs. ACIT, Circle 1(2), Trivandrum

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

ITA 57/COCH/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin09 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Syedali Ebrahim 328, 329, Saad Manzil Pathamkally, Neyyattinkara Thiruvananthapuram 695009 [Pan: Aajpe7592E] .......... Appellant Vs. Acit, Circle - 1(2) Aayakar Bahvan .......... Respondent Kowdiar Thiruvanantapuram 695003 Appellant By: ------- None ------- Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 09.12.2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

that the addition of Rs. 1,25,000/- represents the amount received from one M/s. United Steels during the earlier assessment year classified under “sundry creditors”. However, the same was re- classified as addition to capital account during the year under consideration. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Subhash Tyagi Prop. M/S Krishana Construction, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

while recording statement under s. 132(4) of the Act. The assessee however expressed his inability to provide bifurcation and whereabouts of part of sundry creditors found recorded in the documents found in the course of search. The assessee eventually admitted in statement that amount ... behalf of the assessee are quite shallow and without any substance. In the light of unassailable detection of false entries in the name of sundry creditors and corresponding expenses debited by way of bogus purchases, the modification of penalty amount by the CIT(A) is wholly unjustified

Shri Subhash Tyagi, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

Sh. Naresh Chauhan, Shimla vs. ACIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 728/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manoj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 68Section 69C

books of accounts were only in raw shape and entered / booked by the accountant Mr. Dinesh Sharma. It was submitted that labour payable and sundry creditor for sand, stone and grit amounting to Rs. 60,75,258/- and Rs. 14,82,546/- respectively were previous years liability payable ... acceptable to the AO. As per AO, on perusal of the audited accounts of the assessee for the year ended 31/03/2009, it shows that sundry creditors and labour charges payable as on 31/03/2009 were Rs. 19,07,910/- and Rs. 60,95,258/- therefore, the submissions filed by the assessee

Sh. Naresh Chauhan, Shimla vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

ITA 726/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Manoj Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 68Section 69C

DCIT, Central Circle 1(1) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Navratna Organisers and Developers Private Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 895/AHD/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)

societies on allotment of the bungalows. The project cost also stands reduced on transfer of project cost to the respective societies. The various sundry creditors are reflecting the business liabilities on the part of the appellant company duly supported by documentary evidences viz. invoices, professional bills, debit notes