RAMESH CHAND RANA,SOUTH DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-52(2), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that neither the assessee's claim nor the department's addition was fully acceptable. Therefore, it decided to assess the turnover at a lump sum estimated rate of 8% without setting a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's gross profit on milk and allied products from a mother dairy booth was added by the lower authorities at 85% of the gross turnover. The assessee did not provide details of business expenditure, and the department could not provide comparable cases for such a high profit margin.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the determination of a reasonable profit margin on the sale of milk and allied products from a mother dairy booth, considering the lack of supporting evidence from the assessee and comparable data from the revenue.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA / NFAC /S / 250 / 2022-23 / 1050227806(1) dated 28.02.2023, in proceedings u/s 143(1) r.w.s. 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned Sr. DR vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities herein have rightly added the assessee’s gross profit(s) of Rs.4,70,442/- @ 85% of his gross turnover in sale of milk and allied products on mother dairy booth; coming to Rs.4,70,442/- which deserve to be upheld. He further buttresses the point that the assessee has already been given benefit of 15% expenditure/wastage as well
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. I am of the considered view that neither party’s submissions herein deserve to be accepted in entirety as the assessee on the one hand has not been pleaded and prove his supportive evidence qua business expenditure claim nor the department could draw any comparable in the very line of business for assessing him at such a huge profit margin of 85% (supra). I therefore deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to assess assessee’s foregoing turnover to a lump sum estimated rate of 8% with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Learned assessing authority shall finalize his computation in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 01/01/2025.
More judgments on Section 264
- Murugaiah Althuri, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2100/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Babu Gundlapalle, Chittoor vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, ChittoorITA 2093/HYD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 787/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central…ITA 786/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Thasil Babu, Bengaluru vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Office…ITA 785/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026