← All Phrases

“trade creditors”

Cash Credits & Unexplained ItemsSection 68Section 68238 judgments

The decision most relied on for trade creditors is Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (49 ITR 723), cited in 123 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on trade creditors

Orient Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT
49 ITR 723 · 1963 · High Court
123
citing judgments

When a cash credit is found, the assessee discharges the initial burden by proving the identity of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction, shifting the burden to the Revenue. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the creditor's funds (source of source).

CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd.
232 ITR 820 · 1998 · High Court
122
citing judgments

To discharge the onus under Section 68, an assessee must establish the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditor. Merely providing basic documentary evidence or a file number is insufficient; each credit entry requires a separate, detailed explanation.

CIT v. Gotan Lime Khaniz Udyog
256 ITR 243 · 2002 · High Court
89
citing judgments

The mere rejection of an assessee's books of account under Section 145(3) does not automatically warrant an addition to the returned income. The Assessing Officer must consider the books alongside historical data and other collected material after confronting the taxpayer.

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.

Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO
8 DTR 199 · 2008 · High Court
71
citing judgments

An assessee discharges their onus under Section 68 for cash credits by proving the identity of the creditor, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditor's creditworthiness. The assessee is not required to prove the source of the creditor's funds ('source of source'), unless evidence suggests the money originated from the assessee itself.

552 (SC) Zaveri Diamonds v. CIT 11-12 3
118 Taxmann.com 166 · 2020 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The court considers the evidentiary value of unaudited books and loose papers when assessing income, particularly concerning trade creditors and their verification.

Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Company Limited
254 ITR 434 · 2002 · Supreme Court
59
citing judgments

For Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act to apply, the mere expiry of the limitation period does not constitute cessation of liability; there must be an explicit act by the creditor, such as a release or admission of write-off, confirming that the liability has ceased without the possibility of revival.

Hindustan Tea Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT
263 ITR 289 · 2003 · High Court
55
citing judgments

Under Section 68, the assessee discharges the initial onus by producing sufficient material and explanation for cash credits. Once material is provided, the Assessing Officer must conduct a proper and thorough inquiry into it, as a half-hearted inquiry or overlooking materials is impermissible.

Judgments citing trade creditors

Daurau Farm LLP, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 979/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshdaurau Farm Llp, Vs. Acit, C-96, First Floor Khirki Central Circle-Ii, Extention, South Delhi, Noida Malviya Nagar, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aapfd6458G Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 68

pleaded that the provisions of section 68 of the Act per 8. se could not be made applicable for making addition on account of trade creditors. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT vs Kulwinder ... accordingly, he deleted the said addition of Rs 19,91,511/-. We find that the addition made on account of trade creditors under 11. section 68 of the Act by the Learned AO in the assessment stood deleted by the Learned CITA, against which the revenue had not preferred

Govdappagouda Channabasangouda Patil, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hubli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1461/BANG/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41Section 44ASection 68

have left the state. As the assessee failed to produce the details as called for, the AO constrained to presume that they are not trade creditors and accordingly held that there is a remission/cessation of liability to the extent of Rs.52,70,132/- (Rs.53,84,960 (-)Rs.1,14,828) which ... assessment order, we find that the AO on the one hand constrained to presume that amount of Rs.52,70,132/- are not the trade creditors as declared by the assessee and on the other hand, held that there is a remission/cessation of liability to the extent of Rs.52

ACIT Circle-16(2), New Delhi vs. Maximal Infrastructure Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1253/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalthe Acit, Circle 16(2) Vs. Maximal Infrastructure Room No. 308, 3Rd Floor, Private Limited C.R. Building, I.P. Estate R-13, 2Nd Floor, Greater New Delhi – 110002 Kailash-1 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacct3615R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Rajkumari, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Virender Kumar Singh, Sr
Section 143Section 143(3)

years. Hence, such an interest cannot form part of the work-in-progress. The interest payment on the outstanding balance in respect of the trade creditors is revenue in nature and allowable expenditure while computing business income. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CIT (A) deleting the above addition

ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad vs. M.M.Construction, Moradabad

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2805/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

through estimate by the AO. 7.4.5 In the instant case, the appellant has brought before the knowledge of the AO that the creditors are trade creditors from whom purchases are made from business. While submitting the remand report, vide letter dated 24.07.2017, the AO has also mentioned that the creditors

M.M.Construction, Moradabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Moradabad

In the result only ground pressed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2030/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 68

through estimate by the AO. 7.4.5 In the instant case, the appellant has brought before the knowledge of the AO that the creditors are trade creditors from whom purchases are made from business. While submitting the remand report, vide letter dated 24.07.2017, the AO has also mentioned that the creditors

M/S. Simero Vitrified P. Ltd., Morbi vs. The Pr. CIT-3, Rajkot

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

ITA 276/RJT/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Vitrified Tiles. The Return Of Income Has Been E-Filed By The Assessee, On 10/09/2016 For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17, Reporting Loss Of Rs. 5,68,00,829/-, Which Was Later Revised On 09/03/2018, Declaring Total Loss Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/-, Claiming Investment Allowance U/S 32Ac Of The Income Tax Act. The Case Has Been Selected For Complete Scrutiny (Cass) Specifically To Examine The Followings: 1) Whether Outward Foreign Remittance Is From Disclosed Sources & Appropriate Withholding & Reporting Obligation Have Been Complied With; 2) Whether Investment & Income Relating To Properties Are Duly Disclosed; 3) Whether Receipt Of Foreign Remittance Has Been Correctly Offered For Tax And, 4) Whether Sundry Creditors Are Genuine. 4. The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 Was Passed By Dcit, Morbi Circle, Morbi, Being The Assessing Officer (Ao), On 21/12/2018, Allowing The Loss Claimed Of Rs. 13,97,40,413/- To Be Carry Forward To Subsequent Years. 2

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32ASection 68

cancelling the assessment order passed by he AO u/s 143(3) and directing de-novo assessment regarding verification of fresh share capital, unsecured loan, trade creditors and claim of investments allowances u/s. 32AC of the Act. 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before ... enquiries/verification in respect of share capital introduced during the year under consideration, unsecured loans (squared up or not) raised during the year and the trade creditors. The AO shall carry out inquiries about the various layers through which the money has been rotated and landed as share capital

D L Tanumal Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT -4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2564/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Mr. Hitesh Trivedi, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT D/R
Section 147Section 154Section 263Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Gpg Cattle Feed Pvt. Ltd., Moga

In the result, the Revenue appeal is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of

ITA 210/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Rupinder Kansal, Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69

mentioned under Section 14, whereas in the instant case the surrender made by the assessee on account of stock, construction of factory, discrepancy in trade creditors can be said to be from the earnings of the business as the assessee, a company has been proved to be in no other

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

reveal that the Learned Assessing Officer has observed that assessee furnished:- (i) copy of income tax returns, (ii) computation of income, (iii) details of trade creditors, (iv) details of sundry creditors, (v) audit report, and (vi) details of share holders. In view of furnishing the details nothing remains for compliance

Ms Rajmal Lakhichand, Jalgaon vs. DCIT, Jalgaon

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

ITA 1205/PUN/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S Rajmal Lakhichand Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon – 425001 Pan: Aacfr8609L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-04-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

charge interest @ 12% on the advances and to partners. There was system of charging interest @ 6% on trade debtors and provide interest @ 6% to trade creditors of related family concerns. However, the assessee has not charged any interest on advances and to the partners. He, therefore, asked the assessee

Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Rajkot vs. The ITO WD-2(1)(5), Rajkot

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 173/RJT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am.& Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.173/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya, Income Tax Officer, Ward- Plot No. 266, Kuvadva Gidc, Opp. 2,(1)(5), Rajkot, Aayakar Vs. Riddhi Agro Industries, Kuvadva, Bhavan, Race Course Ring Rajkot-360003 Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acxpp9434A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08 /01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha Jm; Captioned Appeal Filed By Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against Order Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi /Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) , Vide Order Dated 25.012024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (‘Ao’ For Short) Dated 26.03.2015 U/S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”). 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Grounds Of Appeal Mentioned Hereunder Are Without Prejudice To One Another. 2. The Id. Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As To The "Cit(A)"] Erred On Facts As Also In Law Confirming Addition Of Rs.86,68,718/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Alleged Unexplained Cash Credit U/S.68 Of The Act On The Alleged Ground That The Appellant Failed To Prove Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Various Parties From Whom Unsecured Loan Of Rs.86,68,718/-Were Ita No. 173-Rjt-2024 Shri Rajesh Karshanbhai Vekariya

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav , Ld .Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 68

find that AO observed that it is unsecure loan and no evidence in available on records the assessee submitted that it is the trade creditors duly recorded in books of account. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that outstanding creditors in the books of account the assessee are bogus. We disallow ... extent of 10% of trade creditors which comes to Rs.8,66,871/- to be added in the hands of the assessee. The AO is directed to compute the same. 5.5 Regarding depreciation of Rs.76,595/- for purchase of new motor car and no bill/voucher is available during the course

Income Tax Officer Indore 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 503/IND/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

audited within the meaning section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee itself has claimed in its submission these creditors are actually trade creditors. But even after availing so many opportunities the assessee is totally unable in furnishing copy of ledgers of such creditors maintained in assessee’s books ... accounts have not been maintained properly. It is big question-mark over the authenticity of the audited books of accounts. If it is a trade creditors, without making a delay the assessee was supposed to furnish copy of bills, vouchers, copy of bank statement, details of transactions etc. to justify

Income Tax Officer 5(1), Indore vs. Umang Developers, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 502/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253(5)

audited within the meaning section 44AB of the Income Tax Act. The assessee itself has claimed in its submission these creditors are actually trade creditors. But even after availing so many opportunities the assessee is totally unable in furnishing copy of ledgers of such creditors maintained in assessee’s books ... accounts have not been maintained properly. It is big question-mark over the authenticity of the audited books of accounts. If it is a trade creditors, without making a delay the assessee was supposed to furnish copy of bills, vouchers, copy of bank statement, details of transactions etc. to justify

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2061/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL

Knauf India Pvt Ltd (Earlier Know As Usg Boral Building Products (India) Pvt Ltd), Haryana vs. ITO, Ward 14 (3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA

ITA 2060/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jhadav, CIT DR
Section 144Section 37Section 92CSection 92C(3)Section 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VIMAL

M/S. Philips India Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1960/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Philips India Limited Dcit, Circle 11(1) 3Rd Floor, Tower-A, Dlf Park, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 08 Block Af, Major Arterial Chowringhee Square, Road, New Town (Rajarhat), Vs. Kolkata-700069, Kolkata-700156, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri A. Kundu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 07.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT DR
Section 92Section 92C

payment is an international transaction. 6.1 The Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.TPO proposed transfer pricing adjustment in respect of outstanding receivables in respect of trade creditors being the AEs by using 6 months LIBOR rate and CUP as the most appropriate method. The Ld.TPO thus proposed adjustment at 5.8749% amounting

Duraisamy Suguna, Vellore vs. ACIT, Cirlce-1, Vellore

ITA 3137/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3137/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Duraisamy Suguna, The Asst Commissioner Of 30 Thellur Road, V. Income Tax, Sai Nagar, Circle -1, Vellore – 632 010. Vellore. [Pan: Dsxps-6094-C] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 69A

such huge cash of her husband. It is also mentioned that she had received cash of Rs.16,00,000/- for late payment to trade creditors. No evidence was filed in this regard also. The main reason for selection was cash deposit. 5.3.2 In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies

Selvan Nirmala, Salem vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, appeal filed of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3109/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3109/Chny/2024 ननिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Selvan Nirmala, Acit Shop No.6, Dddc Building, V. Circle -1, Sub-Jail Road, Maruthi Nagar, Krishnagiri- 636 007. Hosur – 635 109. [Pan: Aeapn-6574-Q] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Bhupendran, Advocate प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 44A

audited financials, Audit report u/s.44AB of the Act, bank statements for the financial year 2015-16 & 2016-17, ledger copies of unsecured loan, Trade creditors ledgers, Overdraft Account statement of bank, cash deposit challans of demonetisation period, Other ledgers accounts and also turnover shown in the TNVAT act. The assessee

ITO, Ward-25(2), New Delhi vs. Telplay Packaging Solutions P.Ltd, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5892/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 68

discussed above. 8.4 We further note that during the appellate proceedings, the Assessee's AR has filed the copies of ledger accounts of eleven trade creditors to whom the shares were, issued to settle their outstanding liabilities. The software supplied by such creditors share holders to the assessee company were

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur vs. Sujeet Singh Chouhan, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes with the above directions and the C

ITA 1361/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalincome Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Jaipur – 302 005 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. Vikash Rajvanshi, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar,JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 250Section 68Section 69A

vide page nos. 4-18 and observed that the size of the assessee’s balance sheet is Rs. 68,88,82,641/- consisting of Trade creditors of Rs. 68,72,20,531 against Trade Debtors of Rs. 61,48,34,355 with a closing stock ... light of our findings (supra) 5). Thorough examination of the results declared by the assessee in terms of turnover, Trade Debtors and Trade Creditors with their confirmations on record 6). Authenticity of Loans taken by the assessee and profitability factor of the venture being run by the assessee