← All Phrases

profit element

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C5,654 judgments

The decision most relied on for profit element is CIT v. President Industries (258 ITR 654), cited in 471 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on profit element

CIT v. President Industries
258 ITR 654 · 2002 · High Court
471
citing judgments

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.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

CIT v. Balchand Ajit Kumar
263 ITR 610 · 2003 · High Court
212
citing judgments

When making an addition for unaccounted receipts, on-money, or non-genuine purchases/sales, the addition should be restricted to the estimated profit element embedded in such transactions, rather than the entire gross amount, particularly when evidence of corresponding expenditure is incomplete. This estimation often involves applying a net profit rate.

CIT v. Gurubachhan Singh J. Juneja
302 ITR 63 · 2008 · High Court
147
citing judgments

When unaccounted receipts or suppressed sales are detected and books of account are rejected under Section 145(3), additions to income must be restricted to the profit element embedded in such transactions, not the entire transaction value. This profit element is to be estimated by considering the assessee's regular profit ratio as per books of account.

Vijay Trading Co. v. ITO
388 ITR 377 · 2016 · High Court
119
citing judgments

When purchases are found bogus, only the profit element embedded therein, and not the entire purchase value, can be added to the assessee's income.

NK Proteins Ltd. v. DCIT
292 CTR 354 · 2017 · Supreme Court
115
citing judgments

When purchases are unverifiable or alleged to be bogus, only the profit element embedded in such transactions is taxable, not the entire purchase amount; the onus lies on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

Judgments citing profit element

Ranjana Kumari, Shimla vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1056/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

plausible explanation has been furnished on the seized evidences. Therefore, the addition is justified. The next prayer of Ld. AR is reasonable estimation of profit element. In the case of Shri Kapil Gupta of M/s Himgiri Beverages (ITA Nos. 1010/Chandi/2025 & ors.), the bench has estimated profit element ... total collections. However, the assessee being a retail vendor would enjoy higher margins. Considering the same, we estimate the profit element of 3% on total cash collections of Rs.1,33,48,595/- which comes to Rs.4,00,458/-. The impugned addition stand restricted to that extent only

M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co., Solan vs. ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1055/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1052/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1053/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1054/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1055/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co. Dcit/Acit (Central) बनाम/ Vs. Gopal Building, Kather By Pass Shimla Solan (Hp) - 173213 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablfm-2356-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1433/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1435/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69ASection 69C

Shri Rahul Thakur (Legal heir of Shri Rajesh Thakur). Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed substantive additions and rejected plea of addition of profit element. The protective addition for Late Shri Rajesh Thakur was deleted subject to the rider that if a stand was taken by the assessee ... reasonable profit estimation on unaccounted sales as quantified by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It has further been stated that once profit element has been estimated on the sales, the separate addition of unaccounted purchases could not be sustained. 4. We find that similar arguments have been

M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co., Solan vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1054/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1052/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1053/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1054/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1055/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co. Dcit/Acit (Central) बनाम/ Vs. Gopal Building, Kather By Pass Shimla Solan (Hp) - 173213 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablfm-2356-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1433/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1435/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69ASection 69C

Shri Rahul Thakur (Legal heir of Shri Rajesh Thakur). Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed substantive additions and rejected plea of addition of profit element. The protective addition for Late Shri Rajesh Thakur was deleted subject to the rider that if a stand was taken by the assessee ... reasonable profit estimation on unaccounted sales as quantified by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It has further been stated that once profit element has been estimated on the sales, the separate addition of unaccounted purchases could not be sustained. 4. We find that similar arguments have been

M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co., Solan vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1053/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1052/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1053/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1054/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1055/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co. Dcit/Acit (Central) बनाम/ Vs. Gopal Building, Kather By Pass Shimla Solan (Hp) - 173213 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablfm-2356-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1433/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1435/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69ASection 69C

Shri Rahul Thakur (Legal heir of Shri Rajesh Thakur). Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed substantive additions and rejected plea of addition of profit element. The protective addition for Late Shri Rajesh Thakur was deleted subject to the rider that if a stand was taken by the assessee ... reasonable profit estimation on unaccounted sales as quantified by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It has further been stated that once profit element has been estimated on the sales, the separate addition of unaccounted purchases could not be sustained. 4. We find that similar arguments have been

M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co., Solan vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeal stand allowed

ITA 1052/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1052/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1053/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1054/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1055/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) M/S Rajesh Kumar & Co. Dcit/Acit (Central) बनाम/ Vs. Gopal Building, Kather By Pass Shimla Solan (Hp) - 173213 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ablfm-2356-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1433/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1434/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1435/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 28Section 69ASection 69C

Shri Rahul Thakur (Legal heir of Shri Rajesh Thakur). Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed substantive additions and rejected plea of addition of profit element. The protective addition for Late Shri Rajesh Thakur was deleted subject to the rider that if a stand was taken by the assessee ... reasonable profit estimation on unaccounted sales as quantified by Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. It has further been stated that once profit element has been estimated on the sales, the separate addition of unaccounted purchases could not be sustained. 4. We find that similar arguments have been

Kalta Liquors, Shimla vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1051/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

plausible explanation has been furnished on the seized evidences. Therefore, the addition is justified. The next prayer of Ld. AR is reasonable estimation of profit element. In the case of Shri Kapil Gupta of M/s Himgiri Beverages (ITA Nos. 1010/Chandi/2025 & ors.), the bench has estimated profit element ... total collections. However, the assessee being a retail vendor would enjoy higher margins. Considering the same, we estimate the profit element of 3% on total cash collections of Rs.1,33,48,595/- which comes to Rs.4,00,458/-. The impugned addition stand restricted to that extent only

Kalta Liquors, Shimla vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1050/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

plausible explanation has been furnished on the seized evidences. Therefore, the addition is justified. The next prayer of Ld. AR is reasonable estimation of profit element. In the case of Shri Kapil Gupta of M/s Himgiri Beverages (ITA Nos. 1010/Chandi/2025 & ors.), the bench has estimated profit element ... total collections. However, the assessee being a retail vendor would enjoy higher margins. Considering the same, we estimate the profit element of 3% on total cash collections of Rs.1,33,48,595/- which comes to Rs.4,00,458/-. The impugned addition stand restricted to that extent only

Kalta Liquors, Shimla vs. ACIT(Central) Shimla, Shimla

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1049/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

plausible explanation has been furnished on the seized evidences. Therefore, the addition is justified. The next prayer of Ld. AR is reasonable estimation of profit element. In the case of Shri Kapil Gupta of M/s Himgiri Beverages (ITA Nos. 1010/Chandi/2025 & ors.), the bench has estimated profit element ... total collections. However, the assessee being a retail vendor would enjoy higher margins. Considering the same, we estimate the profit element of 3% on total cash collections of Rs.1,33,48,595/- which comes to Rs.4,00,458/-. The impugned addition stand restricted to that extent only

Inder Kalta, Shimla vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1048/CHANDI/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

plausible explanation has been furnished on the seized evidences. Therefore, the addition is justified. The next prayer of Ld. AR is reasonable estimation of profit element. In the case of Shri Kapil Gupta of M/s Himgiri Beverages (ITA Nos. 1010/Chandi/2025 & ors.), the bench has estimated profit element ... total collections. However, the assessee being a retail vendor would enjoy higher margins. Considering the same, we estimate the profit element of 3% on total cash collections of Rs.1,33,48,595/- which comes to Rs.4,00,458/-. The impugned addition stand restricted to that extent only

Inder Kalta, Shimla vs. DCIT/ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1047/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

plausible explanation has been furnished on the seized evidences. Therefore, the addition is justified. The next prayer of Ld. AR is reasonable estimation of profit element. In the case of Shri Kapil Gupta of M/s Himgiri Beverages (ITA Nos. 1010/Chandi/2025 & ors.), the bench has estimated profit element ... total collections. However, the assessee being a retail vendor would enjoy higher margins. Considering the same, we estimate the profit element of 3% on total cash collections of Rs.1,33,48,595/- which comes to Rs.4,00,458/-. The impugned addition stand restricted to that extent only

Inder Kalta, Shimla vs. ACIT(Central), Shimla

Appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 1046/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Apr 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1056/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1057/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1060/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 4. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1058/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Smt. Ranjana Kumari / Kalta Dcit/Acit (Central) Kalta Niwas (Near Sharma Niwas) Shimla बनाम/ Vs. North Oak,Sanjauli, Shimla Himachal Pradesh - 171006 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bbndp-5738-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1046/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1047/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) & 7. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1048/Chandi/2025

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 271ASection 69A

plausible explanation has been furnished on the seized evidences. Therefore, the addition is justified. The next prayer of Ld. AR is reasonable estimation of profit element. In the case of Shri Kapil Gupta of M/s Himgiri Beverages (ITA Nos. 1010/Chandi/2025 & ors.), the bench has estimated profit element ... total collections. However, the assessee being a retail vendor would enjoy higher margins. Considering the same, we estimate the profit element of 3% on total cash collections of Rs.1,33,48,595/- which comes to Rs.4,00,458/-. The impugned addition stand restricted to that extent only

Omkara Diamond Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9175/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, Therefore, Lies Not Merely In The Realm Of Quantum Addition, But Fundamentally Concerns The Legality Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Under Section 147 In A Second Round Of Reassessment Proceedings On Identical Set Of Facts Which Had Already Been Examined & Adjudicated In Earlier Proceedings. Omkara Diamond Exports Private Limited 2 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 15,85,249/-. The Case Was Initially Reopened Under Section 147 Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Alleging That The Assessee Had Obtained Accommodation Entries From Entities Controlled By Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. The Reasons Recorded In The First Round Clearly Refer To The Alleged Modus Operandi Of Issuing Bogus Purchase Bills & The Purchases Alleged To Have Been Made From Eight Parties Aggregating To Rs. 8,24,01,689/-.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Assessing Officer. In the first round, the Assessing Officer, upon consideration of the very same material, took a conscious view that only the profit element embedded in such purchases is liable to be taxed, which view thereafter travelled through the appellate hierarchy and ultimately culminated in a direction

Income Tax Officer 41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Transport Service, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5435/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Ito 41(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Anil Transport Service Room No.830, Kautilya B-102, Harshad Apartment, E.E. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East Highway Behind Everad Nagar Sion Mumbai-400051 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Co No.90/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anil Transport Service Vs Ito 41(1)(1) B-102, Harshad Apartment, Room No.830, Kautilya Bhavan, E.E. Highway Behind Everad Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai-400051 Nagar Sion East, Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.V.Dharkar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DharkarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P Sheth (38) Taxmann.com 385) has held that not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court ... sales without purchases. When the sales were accepted, then the corresponding purchases could not be disallowed. Therefore, CIT(A) held that only the profit element embedded in the purchases would be subject to tax and not the entire purchase amount. On due consideration CIT(A) added 2% of the purchase

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)- 3(1), Kolkata vs. Auxinite Suppliers Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaecb3974H Co No. 11/Kol/2025 (Arising In Ita No. 139/Kol/2025 For A.Y. 2019-20) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Auxinite Suppliers Private Tax (Cc)-3(1) Limited 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan 44/2A Jain Tower, Hazra Road, Vs. Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Kolkata- Kolkata-700019, West Bengal 700017, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar & Giridhar Dhelia, Ars Revenue By : Shri V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri Rajeeva Kumar &For Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 68

taking a holistic view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it proper to consider net profit element @ 5% of the sale consideration i.e. 5% of Rs.17,05,60,000/- which comes to Rs.85,28,000/- be subjected to tax. We, accordingly delete the addition ... extent of Rs.16,20,32,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act and sustain the balance of Rs.85,28,000/- towards profit element on the impugned sale transaction of shares undertaken by the assessee.” A similar view has also been taken by the Hon. Tribunal, “B” Bench in the case