← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(4), Bangalore vs. Dr. Sunitha Agarwal, Bangalore

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

ITA 519/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Dr. Sunitha Agarwal, The Income-Tax Officer, No. 15, Eagle Street, Ward – 2(3)(4), Langford Town, Bangalore. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aacpa7991G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 28.12.2018 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-2, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal. “I) The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,64,63,000/-. Ii) The Ld.Cit(A) Failed To Consider The Fact That The Self Made Vouchers & Case Sheets Of The Patient Do Not Prove The Genuineness Of The Transaction In Absence Of Such Confirmation By The Patient & Therefore They Do Not Prove The Identity Of The Creditor Of Advance Also. Iii) The Ld.Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered The Fact That The Assessee Has Failed To Establish That The Advances Are Recognized As Revenue Is Subsequent Years. Iv) For These & Such Other Grounds That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing It Is Prayed That The Order Of Assessing Officer Be Upheld & That Of The Ld.Cit(A) Be Quashed.”

For Appellant: None

record. 2.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee in the balance sheet filed along with the return of income under the head "Sundry Creditors" had shown an amount of Rs.1,64,63,000/-. During the asst. proceedings the assessing officer had sought for supporting documents/ bills/ receipts/ invoices

M/S Talisma Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2499/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore21 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Talisma Corporation Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Olympia The Deputy Building, Commissioner Of Bagmane Tech Park, Income Tax, C V Raman Nagar, Circle 7 (1)(1), Byrasandra Post, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 560 093. Pan: Aabct1052F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayan, Advocate Revenue By : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 For A.Y. 2013-14 By Ld.Dcit, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Talisma Corporation Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As "Appellant"), Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Appeal Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned A01 Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 (The Act") On The Following Grounds: That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law: 1. The Learned Ao/ Transfer Pricing Officer (.Tpo') Erred. In Law & In Facts. In Making An Addition Of Inr 1,44.13,409

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 271(1)(c)

adjustment regarding the receivables and thus receivables arising out of such transaction have already been accounted for. Alternatively, he submitted that working capital subsumes sundry creditors and therefore separate addition is not called for. 23.1. Ld.TPO computed interest on outstanding receivables under weighted average method using LIBOR + 300 basis points ... Ld.AR. Page 12 of 14 IT(TP)A No. 2499/Bang/2017 23.8. Alternatively, it has been argued that in TNMM, working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and loans and advances to associated enterprise would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal

Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 566/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 566/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt. Ltd., 14/1 & 15/1, The Deputy Maruthi Industrial Commissioner Of Estate, Income Tax, Phase 2, Hoody Village, Circle – 3 (1)(1), Whitefield Road, Vs. Bangalore. Kr Puram, Bangalore – 560 048. Pan: Aaacb8857H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Final Assessment Order Dated 30.08.2021 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Hereinafter Taken By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another. I. Transfer Pricing 1. The Learned Assessing Officer ("Ao"), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer ("Learned Tpo") & The Honourable Dispute

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 40Section 92BSection 92C

these are factually distinguishable and thus, we reject argument advanced by the Ld.AR. 12. Alternatively, it has been argued that working capital adjustment subsumes sundry creditors. In such situation computing interest on outstanding receivables and lones and advances to international transaction would amount to double taxation. Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal