← All Phrases

“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
76
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
55
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
47
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
47
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
43
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
40
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
39
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
38
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

Paras Jain HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3436/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumarparas Jain Huf, Vs. Ito, Ward 43 (1), 158, Sandesh Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aanhp8779E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saurav Rohatgi, Ca Shri Rajat Mittal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Order : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (Hereinafter Referred To 'Ld. Cit (A)' Dated 25.03.2024 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Paras Jain (Huf), The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Income Of Rs.4,35,910. The Assessee Was The Proprietor Of M/S. Aaradhya Jewellers & Deals In The Trading Of Gold & Diamond Jewellery. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) & Thereafter, The Case

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Rohatgi, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

issues of sustenance of addition of Rs.44,50,000/- u/s 68 for cash deposits during demonetization period and Rs.20,85,181/- for outstanding sundry creditors and advance from customers by the ld. CIT (A). 5. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice that ... record. We observed that the additions were sustained by the ld. CIT (A) relating to cash deposits during demonetization period and for outstanding sundry creditors and advance from customers, and considering the additions sustained by the ld. CIT (A), in our considered view, assessee should be given one more opportunity

Technodot Engineers Pvt. Ltd, Gandhinagar vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParimalFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR & Shri Rignesh K
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 271(1)(b)

discrepancies between the digital data seized during the search and the reported figures in the audited accounts, particularly related to loans, unsecured loans, and sundry creditors. One notable issue was the substantial loan amounts shown as being provided by the assessee's family members, which, upon investigation, were found ... from the office premises of Shri Sanjay Gupta at Ahmedabad, in which several discrepancies were pointed out with respect to details of unsecured loans, sundry creditors, loans and advances etc. Therefore, it is not a case where the additions were made without reference to any incriminating material found during