← 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

Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, Kanpur vs. ACIT-3, Kanpur

ITA 108/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.108/Lkw/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Arun Kumar Chaturvedi 12/9, Vishno Puri Colony, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Pan: Abcpc6864F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Kanpur . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : None [Adjournment Rejected] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1059274800(1) Dt. 02/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 31/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Anent To The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Contractor Is A Proprietor Of M/S Hi-Tech Controls Filed His Return Of Income Declaring ₹16,43,890/- For The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By

For Appellant: None [Adjournment Rejected]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 253(1)(a)Section 40Section 41(1)

service of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. In the event of assessee’s failure to substantiate genuineness of seven sundry creditors viz; M/s Technical Power Corp., M/s Alka & Co., M/s Industrial Casting Corp., M/s Chandra & Co., M/s Puneet Traders, M/s Glorious Electricals and M/s Manoj Contractors ... opening balances amounting to ₹1,11,95, 204/- standing payable to such sundry creditors were added to income u/s 41(1) of the Act by holding that such amounts are carried in financial statement as payable even after their cessation. In addition to above, on account of assessee’s failure

C.M.D. Ratnakar Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad vs. Jasper Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/HYD/2021[2016-17`]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam and Shri EV Sri Krishna, ARsFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 14A

funds. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 39,05,729/- under sundry creditors even though the assessee failed to prove the same before the Assessing Officer without even bringing on record the correctness of the claim made ... said expenditure is capital in nature and cannot be allowed as deduction. Further, the AO had made adhoc disallowance of 20% of un-proved sundry creditors on the ground that the assessee could not furnish confirmations from the parties. Similarly, the AO has disallowed excess depreciation claimed on trucks

Jasper Industries Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 781/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha G., Hon'Bleधििाारण वर्ा आ.अपी.सं अपीलार्थी / प्रत्‍यर्थी / / A.Y. Appellant Respondent / Ita No. M/S. Jasper Asst. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, Limited, 781/Hyd/2020 2016-17 Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H] M/S. Jasper Dy. Commissioner Industries Private Of Income Tax, 6/Hyd/2021 2016-17 Limited, Circle-2(1), Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan: Aaacj5760H]

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Subrahmanyam and Shri EV Sri Krishna, ARsFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 14A

funds. 2. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 39,05,729/- under sundry creditors even though the assessee failed to prove the same before the Assessing Officer without even bringing on record the correctness of the claim made ... said expenditure is capital in nature and cannot be allowed as deduction. Further, the AO had made adhoc disallowance of 20% of un-proved sundry creditors on the ground that the assessee could not furnish confirmations from the parties. Similarly, the AO has disallowed excess depreciation claimed on trucks