← 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

Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao, Vijayawada vs. The Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada

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

ITA 298/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 298/Viz/2024 (निर्धररवरध/ Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mothukuri Srinivasa Rao V. The Asst. Cit - Circle-2(1) D.No.54-28/1-48, Flat.No.305 C R Building, 1St Floor Annex Ridge Grandeuer Apartment M G Road, Krishna District Road.No.2, Commercial Taxes Colony Andhra Pradesh - 520002 Auto Nagar, Krishna District Andhra Pradesh - 520007 [Pan : Adppm5568D ] (अपीलार्/ Appellant) (प्र्/ Respondent) करद्त्क्पनतनिनरध/ Assessee Represented By : M.V. Prasad, Ar : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar र्जसक्पनतनिनरध/ Department Represented By सुिव्ईसम्पहोिेकीनतनि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 घोरर्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [Hereinafter In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”]

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

Rs.39,83,030/- and agricultural income of Rs. 19,14,000/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS to examine whether sundry creditors are genuine and whether the share capital is genuine and from disclosed sources. Accordingly, notices under section

Navbharat Builders, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3534/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranavbharat Builders, Vs. Acit-Circle-22(1). 323/A-2, Piramalchambers, Behind Hotelanugraha, Lalbaugh. Mumbai-400012. New Shahupuri, Kolhapur-416001. Maharashtra Pan/Gir No. Aabfn1159L (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By Shri. Prashant Ghumane.Ar Respondent By Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 02.09.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024 Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assesse Has Filed The Appeal Against Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal Nfac Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 143(3) & U/Sec 250 Of The Income Tax Act. The Assesse Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: "1.The Order Bad, Illegal & Without Jurisdiction 1.1 In The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellate Order Framed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

assessee has filed the financial statements and details of works undertaken. On perusal of information, the A.O find that the assesse has disclosed sundry creditors outstanding closing balances carried forward from earlier years and has called for the explanations and details. Similarly the assessee has disclosed sundry debtors. The assessee

Boopathi Mouliswaran, Coimbatore vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 506/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.506/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-2018) Boopathi Mouliswaran, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 758, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Income, Tatabad, Non Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Ahrpm 2004Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chardia, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Ms Kavitha, Irs, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chardia, C.AFor Respondent: Ms Kavitha, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

explanation with evidence in respect of both the items and the same were uploaded. The ld.AO noted the following difference with regard to Sundry Creditors and the same is illustrated hereunder:- Creditor's name Closing balance as Closing balance as Difference per Appellant's per Party's book books ... Sl.No Particulars Rs. i Difference in interest receipts 24,790 ii Disallowance under repairs and 2,70,719 maintenance iii Difference in sundry creditors A/c on 14,72,956 confirmation of balance iv Deposit on SBN over above the closing 35,74,000 balance as on 08.11.2017 Total

Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Office, Kudal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 701/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.701/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Vs The Income Tax Officer, S-7 Vinayak Apartment, Vaishyawada, Kudal Sawantwadi, Maharashtra-416510 Pan : Acgpb9237N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.1,35,52,006/- (Sundry Creditors Rs.41,42,506 & Unsecured Loans Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy

Section 115BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.1,35,52,006/- (Sundry Creditors Rs.41,42,506 and Unsecured Loans Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy Rs.94,09,500) being additions u/s 68. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend ... appeal notices. The Assessing Officer (AO) proposed additions under Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for both sundry creditors and unsecured loans due to insufficient substantiation of the increase in liabilities by the assessee. Despite requests for clarification and submission of relevant details