CIT v. President Industries

258 ITR 654High Court2002#148 most cited

What is CIT v. President Industries authority for?

When books of account are rejected and unaccounted sales or receipts are discovered, the income addition is restricted to the net profit element embedded in these undisclosed transactions, not the entire sale proceeds or receipts, especially if corresponding purchases are not proven to be outside the books.

471

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. President Industries · 258 ITR 654 · Gujarat High Court · rejection of books of account · unaccounted sales · undisclosed sales · on-money receipts · profit element · net profit embedded · section 145(3) · section 132 · section 153A

Also reported as

124 Taxmann 654158 CTR 372134 TTJ 129

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 148Section 153ASection 115BBESection 142(1)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 256(1)on money receiptsection 256project completion methodsurrender of incomeon-moneysection 69bsection 292crejection of books of accountloose paperssection 145(3)retracted statement

Judgments citing CIT v. President Industries

ACIT 26 (2), Mumbai vs. Perfect Garments Processors, Mumbai

In the result, for ay 2009-10 appeal of the learned

ITA 6590/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ressed income as GP to the income of the appellant. The appellant relied on various case laws as mentioned below- 1 CIT versus Simit P Seth 38 taxman 385 (Gujarat) 2 CIT versus Bholanath private limited 355 ITR 290 (Gujarat) 3. CIT versus president industries 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) 4. free India assurance services Ltd versus deputy Commissioner of income tax 132 ITD 60 (mum) The AR of the appellant also cited several case laws in favour of his argument for adopting only profit embedded in the nongenuine purchases which could be brought to tax with ITA Nos.6590,6591,6580 & 6579/Mum/2019 Perfecr Garments Processors;…

Perfect Garments Processors, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, for ay 2009-10 appeal of the learned

ITA 6580/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ressed income as GP to the income of the appellant. The appellant relied on various case laws as mentioned below- 1 CIT versus Simit P Seth 38 taxman 385 (Gujarat) 2 CIT versus Bholanath private limited 355 ITR 290 (Gujarat) 3. CIT versus president industries 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) 4. free India assurance services Ltd versus deputy Commissioner of income tax 132 ITD 60 (mum) The AR of the appellant also cited several case laws in favour of his argument for adopting only profit embedded in the nongenuine purchases which could be brought to tax with ITA Nos.6590,6591,6580 & 6579/Mum/2019 Perfecr Garments Processors;…

Perfect Garment Processors, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, for ay 2009-10 appeal of the learned

ITA 6579/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ressed income as GP to the income of the appellant. The appellant relied on various case laws as mentioned below- 1 CIT versus Simit P Seth 38 taxman 385 (Gujarat) 2 CIT versus Bholanath private limited 355 ITR 290 (Gujarat) 3. CIT versus president industries 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) 4. free India assurance services Ltd versus deputy Commissioner of income tax 132 ITD 60 (mum) The AR of the appellant also cited several case laws in favour of his argument for adopting only profit embedded in the nongenuine purchases which could be brought to tax with ITA Nos.6590,6591,6580 & 6579/Mum/2019 Perfecr Garments Processors;…

M/S Shri Jeen Mata Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Us Are As Under:-

For Appellant: Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 244A

…• DCIT vs. Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. XXII TW 155 (JP) • Ghewarchand vs. ITO- XXI TW 571 • Siddheshwari Cotton Mills P. Ltd. vs. CIT 117 ITR 953 at 957 (Call) • ACIT vs. M/s Mount Malt Bru Ltd 34 TW 246 (JP) • CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) • CIT vs. Abhishek Corporation (2000) 158 CTR 374 (Guj.) • ITO vs. Star Consortium 127 taxman 681 (Kol) (2021), (DPB?) 9. Before us, the Revenue has relied upon two case laws as under:- • Rah Jajharia E to E JV [2017] ITA No. 1848/Kol/2017 of the ITAT, Kolkata dated 21.12.2017. 6 M/s Shri Jeen Mata Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. • Surendra S. Gupta…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Dirgh Diamond, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 764/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Dy. Cit, M/S Dirgh Diamond, Circle-3(3), 53-54, Plot No. 4, Vs Surat. Matawadi, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan: Aahfd1949C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 133(6)

…9 dated 26.07.2011 and decision of M/s 6 Dirgh Diamond Mayank Diamond Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014(11) TMI 812 (Guj). The ld. CIT(A) further held that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Satyanaraya P. Rathi (2013)351 ITR 150, President Industries 258 ITR 654, Samit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 and Bholanath Poly Fab (2013) 355 ITR 290 held that only percentage of purchase represent of profit may be taxed. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, the ld. CIT(A) concluded that fact of the present appeal are identical to Gagnani Impex and accordingly restricted addition to 5% of bogus purchase. Aggrieved…

DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai vs. Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 132Section 153A

…evertheless, there are substantial and good reasons for adopting the GP rate of 2.25%, as it is apparent that GP rate of 53.76% adopted by the Assessing Officer is too high and unacceptable." 8. It was also held in the case of CIT v. President Industries Ltd [258 ITR 654(Guj.)], by the Hon'ble High Court held that the sale proceeds could not represent the income of the assessee and only the excess of sale process over cost incurred could form profits, which could be included in the income of the assessee. 9. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Income tax -III vs. V. R. Textiles [Tax appeal 1828 of 2010] it wa…

Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 74/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 132Section 153A

…evertheless, there are substantial and good reasons for adopting the GP rate of 2.25%, as it is apparent that GP rate of 53.76% adopted by the Assessing Officer is too high and unacceptable." 8. It was also held in the case of CIT v. President Industries Ltd [258 ITR 654(Guj.)], by the Hon'ble High Court held that the sale proceeds could not represent the income of the assessee and only the excess of sale process over cost incurred could form profits, which could be included in the income of the assessee. 9. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Income tax -III vs. V. R. Textiles [Tax appeal 1828 of 2010] it wa…

Associate Lumbers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 73/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 132Section 153A

…evertheless, there are substantial and good reasons for adopting the GP rate of 2.25%, as it is apparent that GP rate of 53.76% adopted by the Assessing Officer is too high and unacceptable." 8. It was also held in the case of CIT v. President Industries Ltd [258 ITR 654(Guj.)], by the Hon'ble High Court held that the sale proceeds could not represent the income of the assessee and only the excess of sale process over cost incurred could form profits, which could be included in the income of the assessee. 9. Further, in the case of Commissioner of Income tax -III vs. V. R. Textiles [Tax appeal 1828 of 2010] it wa…

Shri Nikhil Garg, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

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

ITA 180/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 180/Jp/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Nikhil Garg, Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Prop.- M/S Kanodia Enterprises, Ward 2(1), 410/10, Agrasen Nagar, Ajmer. Ajmer. Pan No.: Achpg 5343 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Devang Gargieya (Itp) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 10/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/02/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 30/01/2017 For The A.Y. 2009-10, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 180/JP/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Nikhil Garg, cuke I.T.O. Vs. Prop.- M/s Kanodia Enterprises, Ward 2(1), 410/10, Agrasen Nagar, Ajmer. Ajmer. PAN No.: ACHPG 5343 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) & Devang Gargieya (ITP) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhar…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Ajmer vs. Shri Bhagchand Jain, Ajmer

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

ITA 1271/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 145Section 145(3)

…the alleged suppressed sale of Rs. 20,00,000/- were already recorded in the books of accounts and therefore, at the best or at the worst it was only NP which could be applied. The law is settled in this behalf. Kindly refer CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.)held that: Reference—Question of law—Question about addition towards sales out of books—No material or finding indicating purchase of goods out of books—Finding of Tribunal that only profits on unaccounted sales could be brought to tax—No referable question of law arose Also refer CIT v/s Mehta Gwar Gum & Co. (2008)12 DTR219 (Raj), ), ITO v…

Sobh Ram, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panipat

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

ITA 941/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Hearings Are Made.”

…he Bank. 7. Copy Ld CIT(A) order Dt. 30.11.2018 relating to 2009-10 Asstt. of the assessee in 1T/128/E/PPT/2016-17 accepting cash deposits in the bank & taking profit margin. 8. Case Laws 1. CIT vs. Dhani Ram 326 ITR 399 (P&H) 2. CIT Vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Gujrat) 3. Income Tax Officer, Ward -4, Ambala Vs. Parmod Mittal ITA No.794/Chd/2013 Assessment Year 2009-10 Sobh Ram vs. ITO (C) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee (“AR”, for short) placed reliance on the aforesaid documents filed from the assessee side, which has already been mentioned in for…

Shri Hardik Mahendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-7(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 48/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 48/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 44A

…tails of net profit disclosed by him in the year which ranges in between 1.22% to 0.91% in the Asstt.Year 2013-14 to 2015-16. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pesidnet Industries, 258 ITR 654 as well as other decisions of the Tribunal, to buttress his contentions that only element of profit embedded in such receipts be added to the total income. After perusal of these records, I am of the view that the assessee agreed before the AO for the addition of this amount in the total income. Before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee agitated additio…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Uma Shakti Corporation Residency Project, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal IT(SS)A 197/Ahd/2013 & 198/Ahd/2013

ITA 1371/AHD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Nov 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahesh S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)

…he assessee has claimed all the expenses in the profit and loss account it is a case only of suppression of the sale consideration. In our opinion, in this regard, the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. President Industries [2002] 258 ITR 654 (Guj.) is fully applicable" 9.7 Considering the concurrent findings of CIT(A) as well as Tribunal regarding the amount of addition on account of papers found during the search, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat that there is no merit in the Department's appeal since whether there was any suppression of sale or not is basically…

Dhani Ram, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-38(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2817/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI [THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING] BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2817/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Dhani Ram, Ward-38(2), Room No. H.No.156, Pkt.B-9, DDA 1006, E-2 Block, vs. Flats, Sector-5, Rohini, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 085. Civic Centre, PAN AENPR3894N Delhi -110002. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directe…

ITO, Ward-6(2), Hyderabad vs. Ms Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Secunderabad

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 279/HYD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri BurraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra &
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 279/H/2013 & 1719/Hyd/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s MS Agarwal Income-tax, Circle – 16(2), Foundries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN – AAICS 4832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajat Mitra & Shri Sumit Jain Assessee by: Shri Burra Date of hearing: 19/07/2021 Date of pronouncement: 24/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: ITA No. 279/Hyd/2013 for AY 2009-10…

ACIT., Circle-16(2), Hyderabad vs. M/S M S Agarwal Foundries Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 1719/HYD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri BurraFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mitra &
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 279/H/2013 & 1719/Hyd/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 Dy. Commissioner of Vs. M/s MS Agarwal Income-tax, Circle – 16(2), Foundries Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN – AAICS 4832K (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajat Mitra & Shri Sumit Jain Assessee by: Shri Burra Date of hearing: 19/07/2021 Date of pronouncement: 24/08/2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: ITA No. 279/Hyd/2013 for AY 2009-10…

ACIT (Central) 1 Indore, Indore vs. Shri Kantilal Kataria, Ratlam

ITA 886/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

…e placed on following citations :-. i) CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) ii) Manmohan Sadani vs. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 0052 (MP) iii) Eagle Seeds & Biotech Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 102 TTJ 1065 (IndoreTrib.) iv) CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (GujHC) v) Kulwant Singh vs. DCIT (2010) 134 TTJ 129 (Del.)” 19. We have heard rival contentions, perused the records placed before us ,duly considered the facts and circumstances, carefully gone through the orders of lower authorities and written and oral submissions made from both the sides. We find that undisputedly, during the course of t…

JCIT OSD (Central)-1, Ratlam vs. Shri Kantilal Kataria, Ratlam

ITA 259/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore02 Aug 2021

Bench: Rajpal Yadav Hon'Ble & Shri Manish Borad

…e placed on following citations :-. i) CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar (2003) 263 ITR 610 (MP) ii) Manmohan Sadani vs. CIT (2008) 304 ITR 0052 (MP) iii) Eagle Seeds & Biotech Ltd. vs. ACIT (2006) 102 TTJ 1065 (IndoreTrib.) iv) CIT vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (GujHC) v) Kulwant Singh vs. DCIT (2010) 134 TTJ 129 (Del.)” 19. We have heard rival contentions, perused the records placed before us ,duly considered the facts and circumstances, carefully gone through the orders of lower authorities and written and oral submissions made from both the sides. We find that undisputedly, during the course of t…

ACIT Range 1(1), Bhopal vs. Aisect Ltd., Bhopal

ITA 953/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

…settled judicial precedents was uncalled for. Further Ld. A.O also failed to take note of the fact that when the sales have been accepted then there has to be corresponding purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) has held that “amount of sales itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit…

ACIT Range 1(1), Bhopal vs. Aisect Ltd., Bhopal

ITA 952/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Roy

Section 143(3)

…settled judicial precedents was uncalled for. Further Ld. A.O also failed to take note of the fact that when the sales have been accepted then there has to be corresponding purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s President Industries 258 ITR 654 (Gujarat) has held that “amount of sales itself cannot represent the income of the assessee who has not disclosed sales. The sales only represented the price received by the seller of the goods for the acquisition of which it has already incurred the cost. It is the realisation of excess over the cost incurred that only forms part of the profit…