← 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

Kavitha Harish Raney, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 506/HYD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 506/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Kavitha Harish Raney Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 7(3) Pan:Acbpr3983L Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/05/2024 आदेश/Order Per Laliet Kumar, Jm. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 1/9/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Resident Individual, Deriving Income From Business & Profession & Has Filed Her Return Of Income For The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(2)

Officer further noted that in original Return of Income the assessee has shown Rs. 28,81,694.42/- as Capital and Rs. 81.90,891/- as Trade Creditors whereas in revised Return of Income the assessee raised Capital to Rs. 30,12,244/- from Rs. 28,81,694.42/- and Trade Creditors ... also questionable and the assessee offered no legitimate explanation of the difference. Also, no confirmation is submitted by the assessee in respect of the Trade Creditors, mere mentioning in balance sheet is not sufficient enough to prove the credit worthiness of the Trade Creditors. It is further noted that