← 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

ITO WD 2(3), Thane vs. Jayesh Jamnadas Fifadra, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4215/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

purchases were not bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only ... profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly

Jayesh J Fifadra, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

purchases were not bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only ... profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly