← 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

DCIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Arihant Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 5899/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5899/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-25(3) Arihant Enterprises Room No. 308, C-11 C-6, Hasmukh Chs Ltd. बनाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Near Mandapeshwar Industrial Estate Vs. Mumbai – 400 051 Mcf, Uday Marg, Borivali(W) Mumbai – 400 092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahfa-0915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Co. No.272/Mum/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Arihant Enterprises Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-25(3) C-6, Hasmukh Chs Ltd. Room No. 308, C-11 बनाम/ Near Mandapeshwar Industrial Estate Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Vs. Mcf, Uday Marg, Borivali(W) Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aahfa-0915-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Hitesh P.Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

parties to confirm the transactions. 6. In the given factual matrix, the addition, in our opinion, 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

Ajay Radheshvam Kejriwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be partly allowed

ITA 1903/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1903/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ajay Radheshyam Kejriwal Ito, Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai-C 13, 5Th Floor, 1-A-65, Manali Evershine Vs. Nagar, Malad (West), Bandra. Mumbai-400064. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpk4820F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri N. Hemalatha Assessee By: Shri Neelam C. Jadhav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28.06.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 30.09.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law Applicable Thereto, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Holding The Validity Of The Re- Opening Of Assessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law Applicable Thereto, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Purchase From Various

For Appellant: Shri Neelam C. JadhavFor Respondent: Shri N. Hemalatha
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth (supra). Considering the VAT rate of 4%, we are of the view that the profit element involved in the impugned purchases may be estimated @ 6%. Accordingly, we modify the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to sustain