← 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

Ais Advance Information Systems (I) P. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1245/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1245/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ais Advance Information Systems (I) Pvt. Ltd..................................................Appellant (Now Known As Psi Ametals India Pvt. Ltd. 6, Old Post Office Street, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aahca 3798 F] Dcit Circle 2(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri I. Banerjee, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Srihari, Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 22, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Cit – 2, Kolkata Dated 29.03.2017 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is A Company Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Rendering Advance Information Technology Services. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Was Filed By It On 11.09.2012 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 56,01,740/-. In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) Vide An Order Dated 11.03.2015, The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Determined By The A.O. At Rs. 1,40,70,003/- After Making A Disallowance Of Rs. 84,68,259/- On Account Of ‘Tax On Remuneration Of Delegates’. The Record Of The Said Assessment Came To Be Examined By The Ld. Principal Cit & On Such Examination, He Found That Out Of Total

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40

amount of Rs. 13,19,341/- was paid to VACE Engineering Gmbh & Co. towards reimbursement of expenses actually incurred and there being no profit element involved therein, the assessee was not required to deduct tax at source. As regards the balance amount of Rs. 28,85,467/- paid