← 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

Tirupathi Construction Corpoation, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1401/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharita Nos.1401, 1402 & 1403/Mum/2017 Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Tirupathi Construction Corporation, Acit 25(3) A-1, (Part) Monarch Castle, Mumbai. Vs. Hanuman Road, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai 400 057. Pan Aaaft6086D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A N ShahFor Respondent: Shri V Justin
Section 133(6)Section 147

other source at a lesser price for avoiding payment of sales tax/VAT etc. In these circumstances, the only course open is to estimate the profit element embedded in such unproved purchases to take care of revenue leakage. It is relevant to observe, learned DR has not brought any material

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Creative Peripherals & Distribution P. Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 680/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Creative Peripherals & Income Tax-5(1)(2), Distribution Pvt. Ltd. Office बिधम/ Room No. 568, 5Th Floor, No. 20, 2Nd Floor, 375/377, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Babu Building, Lamington Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Road, Grand Road (E) Mumbai-400026 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaccc5396G (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Narayan Atal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

view that the addition in the hands of the assessee was liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit element involved in making of such bogus purchases by the assessee from the open/grey market. The CIT(A) in the backdrop of his aforesaid conviction restricted the addition ... Alternatively, it was submitted by the ld. D.R that even if the addition was liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit element, the same as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Simit P. Sheth

Kolluri Ramaswamy, Visakhapatnam vs. The DCIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, in all the appeals ground Nos

ITA 557/VIZ/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 69C

that Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) only considered ‘under invoicing’ and not considered ‘under invoicing sales’. Therefore, it is submitted that only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. To support the above proposition, ld. counsel has relied on the assessment order ... that the Assessing Officer has only considered under invoicing of imported goods and not considered under valuation of sales and submitted that the only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. Insofar as this plea is concerned, the DRI authorities after scrutiny

Kolluri Ramaswamy, Visakhapatnam vs. The DCIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, in all the appeals ground Nos

ITA 556/VIZ/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 69C

that Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) only considered ‘under invoicing’ and not considered ‘under invoicing sales’. Therefore, it is submitted that only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. To support the above proposition, ld. counsel has relied on the assessment order ... that the Assessing Officer has only considered under invoicing of imported goods and not considered under valuation of sales and submitted that the only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. Insofar as this plea is concerned, the DRI authorities after scrutiny

Kolluri Ramaswamy, Visakhapatnam vs. The DCIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, in all the appeals ground Nos

ITA 555/VIZ/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 69C

that Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) only considered ‘under invoicing’ and not considered ‘under invoicing sales’. Therefore, it is submitted that only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. To support the above proposition, ld. counsel has relied on the assessment order ... that the Assessing Officer has only considered under invoicing of imported goods and not considered under valuation of sales and submitted that the only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. Insofar as this plea is concerned, the DRI authorities after scrutiny

Kolluri Ramaswamy, Visakhapatnam vs. The DCIT, Visakhapatnam

In the result, in all the appeals ground Nos

ITA 554/VIZ/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Deba Kumar Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 69C

that Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) only considered ‘under invoicing’ and not considered ‘under invoicing sales’. Therefore, it is submitted that only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. To support the above proposition, ld. counsel has relied on the assessment order ... that the Assessing Officer has only considered under invoicing of imported goods and not considered under valuation of sales and submitted that the only profit element has to be subjected to addition and not the entire amount. Insofar as this plea is concerned, the DRI authorities after scrutiny

Anil Dadarao Garad, Ambernath vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6162/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanshri Anil Dadarao Garad Ito Ward 2(1), 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Prop. M/S Shivjeet Chemicals/Shivani Chemicals, Vs. Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, W-34, Morival, Midc, Kalyan-421301. Ambernath-421501. Pan: Aazpg8732G Appellant Respondent Ito Ward 2(1), Shri Anil Dadarao Garad 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Prop. M/S Shivjeet Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Vs. Chemicals/Shivani Chemicals, Kalyan-421301. W-34, Morival, Midc, Ambernath-421501. Pan: Aazpg8732G Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.M. Makhija (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Cross Appeal Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 13.07.2007 For Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Makhija (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

purchases without appreciating that i) As decided by various judicial forums under situations alike of the assessee what is to be added is the profit element embedded in the transaction which in assesee's case is 3.8% only. ii) That assessee has paid VAT on alleged bogus purchase

Jt CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Shazad Rustumji, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 368/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R
Section 194CSection 40

charges of Rs.9,62,846/- u/s 40(a)(ia), without considering the fact that the assessee has not deducted TDS on agency charges i.e. profit element of person who carried out the work of clearing & forwarding. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sk. Md.Mahasin, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata, Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 300/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sk. Md. Mahasin…….…............…..…….……………………..…………………………………..……….……..Appellant Vill.-Baragrm P.O.-Rasulpur Dist-Burdwan-713 151 [Pan : Akbpm 8919 P] Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Burdwan..………………………………...……...…………….......Respondent Appearances By: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Satyajit Mondal, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 28Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 20Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 250

turnover as commission received. He drew the attention of the Bench to para 3.5. page 5 of the assessment order and submitted that the profit element of 1.46% was brought to tax, though in this line of business, the commission ranges from 0.25% to 0.50%. For the proposition that

Shri Rajendra Kumar Biyani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 1372/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. Nos.1372 To 1375/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2010-11) Rajendra Kumar Biyani Income Tax Officer-31(3)(1) R8-18, Jai Shree Dhan Society C-13, Pratyakshkar Bhavan बनाम/ Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (W) Room No.408-A Vs. Mumbai-400 104 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (East),Mumbai-400 051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpb-1591-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Rushabh Mehta, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ram Tiwari, Ld. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

above stated facts, we are of the opinion that in the given situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit element earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit

Smt. Neeta Sanjay Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26 (2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6700/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 271

arises for consideration here is whether the entire amount of purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee or only the profit element embedded therein was to ascertain, whether the purchase themselves were completely bogus and non-existent or that the purchases were actually made ... assessee has submitted that he has sold the goods purchased from the alleged bogus parties to various parties. That being the position, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Further, there will be inflation of purchases also, which must

ITO 10(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and upheld the

ITA 4126/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer- M/S Ivt Valves Pvt. Ltd. 10(1)(3), Plot No.1-4, Loyalka Lane, बनाम/ Room No.25B, Ground Opp. Aziz Compound, Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Sakinaka, M.K. Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400072 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aabc17006E

sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries

Kanade Anand Udyog P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3842/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 69C

nature. In such scenario what is needed to be considered for addition is whether total amount of such bogus purchases or only the profit element embedded in such purchases. Various courts and Tribunals have taken a consistent view that in the case of bogus purchases, what is needed ... taxed is only profit element embedded in such purchases, but not the whole bogus purchases. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the vase of Vijay Protiens Ltd vs CIT 2015 TMI 828 (Gujarat HC) has held that in the case of bogus purchases, profit element embedded in such purchases

M/S. Bg Exploration & Production India Ltd., Mumbai vs. JCIT (International Taxation), Dehradun

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

ITA 1478/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Bg Exploration & Production India Jcit (International Taxation), Ltd., Dehradun. Lake Boulevard Road, Vs. Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 153(4)Section 92C

difficulty in scrutinizing and verifying the claims of the appellant; (ii) The payment to BGIL is on cost to cost basis and no profit element is involved therein. In other words, the same is mere reimbursement of expenses incurred by BGIL and (iii) the expenditure has been incurred

Pushpak Auxichem P.Ltd, Thane vs. ITO WD 1(3), Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 4031/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Pushpak Auxichem Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 (3) Mohan Plaza, 1St Floor Wayle Nagar 241/B-2, Kasturi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Khadak Pada, Manpada Road, Dombivali (East), Vs. Kalyan- 421301 Thane-421 201

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Purohit, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

from making the purchases from the open/grey market. We find that our indulgence in the present appeal has been sought for quantification of the profit element that would be involved in making of the purchases by the assessee from the open/grey market. We are of the considered view that

ACIT Cir 27(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Amit Rajendra Sheth, Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 755/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.5835/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Amit Rajendra Sheth Tax Circle-27(1) 1130/4, Nilgiri Neelkanth Vihar Ii Room No.415, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Kurla Terminus Road Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex Vidyavihar(E) Vs. Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Avzps-0920-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.753/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Amit Rajendra Sheth Tax Circle-27(1) 1130/4, Nilgiri Neelkanth Vihar Ii Room No.415, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Kurla Terminus Road Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex Vs. Vidyavihar(E) Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Avzps-0920-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.755/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Amit Rajendra Sheth 1130/4, Nilgiri Neelkanth Vihar Ii Tax Circle-27(1) Room No.415, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Kurla Terminus Road Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex Vidyavihar(E) Vs. Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Avzps-0920-P

For Appellant: Kirit Sanghvi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

transactions could not be discharged by the assessee. Therefore, in such a situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit

ACIT Cir 27(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Amit Rajendra Sheth, Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 753/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.5835/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Amit Rajendra Sheth Tax Circle-27(1) 1130/4, Nilgiri Neelkanth Vihar Ii Room No.415, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Kurla Terminus Road Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex Vidyavihar(E) Vs. Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Avzps-0920-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.753/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Amit Rajendra Sheth Tax Circle-27(1) 1130/4, Nilgiri Neelkanth Vihar Ii Room No.415, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Kurla Terminus Road Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex Vs. Vidyavihar(E) Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Avzps-0920-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.755/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Amit Rajendra Sheth 1130/4, Nilgiri Neelkanth Vihar Ii Tax Circle-27(1) Room No.415, 4Th Floor बनाम/ Kurla Terminus Road Tower No.6, Vashi Station Complex Vidyavihar(E) Vs. Mumbai-400 703 Mumbai-400 077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Avzps-0920-P

For Appellant: Kirit Sanghvi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

transactions could not be discharged by the assessee. Therefore, in such a situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit

Athene Construction P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 3620/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.3620/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Athene Construction Llp Assistant Commissioner Of [Formerly Known As M/S Athene Income Tax -10(3) बनाम/ Construction Pvt.Ltd] Aaykar Bhavan Vs. 203, Raikar Bhavan, Sector-17 Mumbai-400 020 Vashi, Mumbai-400 705 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aafca-7068-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.Dr : Piyush Chhajed, Ld.Ar Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09/07/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 13/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

these factors cast serious doubt on assessee’s claim. Therefore, in such a situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize for profit element earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue

Shri Jayesh Bhogilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1684/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 133(6)

sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries

Shri Vijay Kumar Kakkar, Prop., Saharanpur vs. ITO, Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4629/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2007-08] Shri Vijay Kumar Kakkar Vs. The I.T.O Prop. M/S Kakkar Cloth House Ward - 3 19, Mahant Market, Raiwala Saharanpur Saharanpur Pan : Acrpk 9764 G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2018 Assessee By : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

came to the conclusion that the assessee must have made sales outside the books of account and accordingly restricted the addition to the profit element of such sales at Rs. 2,81,536/-. 7. A careful consideration of the facts emanating from the assessment order and order of the first