← 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

Mckinsey & Company Phils, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1751/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

outset, submitted that the issue requires re-appreciation by lower authorities since these expenses were mere reimbursements in nature without any profit element and therefore, the assessee be afforded another opportunity to demonstrate the same. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objections against the same. Resultantly, the issue

Mckinsey & Company, Inc. Thailand, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1750/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

outset, submitted that the issue requires re-appreciation by lower authorities since these expenses were mere reimbursements in nature without any profit element and therefore, the assessee be afforded another opportunity to demonstrate the same. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objections against the same. Resultantly, the issue

Mckinsey Pacific Rim, Inc, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1749/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

outset, submitted that the issue requires re-appreciation by lower authorities since these expenses were mere reimbursements in nature without any profit element and therefore, the assessee be afforded another opportunity to demonstrate the same. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objections against the same. Resultantly, the issue

Mckinsey & Company, Inc. United States, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands allowed

ITA 1748/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

outset, submitted that the issue requires re-appreciation by lower authorities since these expenses were mere reimbursements in nature without any profit element and therefore, the assessee be afforded another opportunity to demonstrate the same. The Ld. DR did not raise any serious objections against the same. Resultantly, the issue

Marriott International Inc, Mumbai vs. ADIT (Internatioal Taxation) - 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2217/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Dhruvi Sangani/For Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 9(1)(vi)

appreciating that the receipts which do not have any income element cannot be regarded as royalty, since a royalty arrangement will always have a profit element; 7. In distinguishing the decisions in case of Marriott International Licensing Company BV, V M Salgaocar and Brothers Private Limited ('V M Salgaocar

Inter Carat Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 8(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 307/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)& Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

Section 148Section 69C

made cannot be upheld. 15. Since the purchases made from M/s Zalak Impex were not conclusively proved, we are of the view that the profit element embedded there in may be added as per the alternative prayer of the assessee. For this proposition, we draw support from the decision rendered ... other years. On these set of facts, we find merit in these submissions of Ld A.R. The Ld A.R has submitted that the profit element may be estimated at a reasonable 8 M/s. Inter Carat Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. rate and he suggested a rate of 2.50% by taking support from

Sunil Mohan Lahori, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 21(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5948/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5948/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Sunil Mohan Lahori Assistant Commissioner Of 9, Janta Industrial Compound Income-Tax 21(3) बिधम/ 162, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Opp.Phoenix Mall Vs. Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapl-4422-H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & Stay Application No. 91/Mum/2018 [Arising Out Of I.T.A. No. 5948/Mum/2017] [नििाारण वषा /Assessment Year 2009-10] Sunil Mohan Lahori Assistant Commissioner Of 9, Janta Industrial Compound Income-Tax 21(3) बिधम/ 162, Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai Opp.Phoenix Mall Vs. Lower Parel (West) Mumbai-400 013 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaapl-4422-H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Himanshu Gandhi.Ld.Ar Revenue By : Aarju Garodia, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 28/02/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 07/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Himanshu Gandhi.Ld.ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

that the assessee was not maintaining adequate stock records. 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

Sameer Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

materials, and since the assessee was engaged in Manufacturing & Trading activity and the turnover has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer, the Profit element embedded in the purchase transactions possibly made in the gray market to get undue benefit of VAT, the Coordinate Bench estimated the profit element ... which cast a 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

Sameer Patel, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 691/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

materials, and since the assessee was engaged in Manufacturing & Trading activity and the turnover has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer, the Profit element embedded in the purchase transactions possibly made in the gray market to get undue benefit of VAT, the Coordinate Bench estimated the profit element ... which cast a 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

Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5438/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5438/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd. Dcit(Osd)-10(3) बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, A-701, Trade World Building, Kamla City, Lower Parel (W), Room No. 517, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb 2180 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Mitesh N. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. A. Khan सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 14.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 05.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 15.10.2015 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. There Are Two Effective Grounds Raised In This Appeal Which Reads As Under: 1. A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition To The Extent Of 12.5%, Being Profit Element Embedded In The Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Rs.2,66,19,848/-, Made By The 2 M/S. Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd. A.O. To The Income Of The Appellant On The Basis Of Information Of The Sales Tax Department About Suspicious Dealers.

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh N. ShahFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition to the extent of 12.5%, being profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.2,66,19,848/-, made by the 2 M/s. Bharat Wire Ropes Ltd. A.O. to the income of the Appellant

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Kreators, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5351/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

assessee from these purchases have been accepted by the Revenue and therefore the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Thus, he directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition ... entire purchases cannot be treated as ITA.No.5350 & 5351/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co M/s. Shankheshwar Kreators bogus and only the profit element embedded in such purchases has to be disallowed. In the cases on hand Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases following

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co, Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5350/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40aSection 69C

assessee from these purchases have been accepted by the Revenue and therefore the entire purchases cannot be treated as bogus but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Thus, he directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition ... entire purchases cannot be treated as ITA.No.5350 & 5351/MUM/2015 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Shankheshwar Real Estate Co M/s. Shankheshwar Kreators bogus and only the profit element embedded in such purchases has to be disallowed. In the cases on hand Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the purchases following

Jet Chemicals P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. Ast CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

ITA 3707/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar
Section 143(1)

Cake Industries (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj) (1C) and taking into consideration the facts of the present case, and to account for the profit element embedded in these purchase transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against

Tirupati Commodities Implex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-6, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4399/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4399-4400/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Tirupati Commodities Impex Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax [Earlier Known As Tirupati Iron & Central Circle-6 बनाम/ Impex Pvt.Ltd] Mumbai Office No.901,9Th Floor Vs. Lodha Supremus Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-3064-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3940-3941/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Tirupati Commodities Impex Income-Tax Private Limited Central Circle 1(4) [Earlier Known As Tirupati Iron बनाम/ Room No.902, 9Th Floor & Impex Pvt.Ltd] Office No.901,9Th Floor Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road Vs. Lodha Supremus Churchgate Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel Mumbai-400 012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-3064-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Prateek Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

factors cast a 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

ITO 32(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nisha Mayur Kamdar, Mumbai

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 405/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.405/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) Nisha Mayur Kamdar बनाम/ Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor 705, Shashi Apartment C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Bhawan Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5742/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nisha Mayur Kamdar Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) 705, Shashi Apartment Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Mumbai – 400 092 Bhawan Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Anil Thakrar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

facts and after following the ratio of Saraswathi Oil Traders Vs. CIT (SC) cited supra, I am of the opinion that it is the profit element in the total component in dispute which needs to be added to the income of the appellant. The total amount which is being treated ... which cast a 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

DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai vs. Tirupati Iron & Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3940/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 4399-4400/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Tirupati Commodities Impex Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax [Earlier Known As Tirupati Iron & Central Circle-6 बनाम/ Impex Pvt.Ltd] Mumbai Office No.901,9Th Floor Vs. Lodha Supremus Senapati Bapat Marg Lower Parel Mumbai-400 012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-3064-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 3940-3941/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Deputy Commissioner Of Tirupati Commodities Impex Income-Tax Private Limited Central Circle 1(4) [Earlier Known As Tirupati Iron बनाम/ Room No.902, 9Th Floor & Impex Pvt.Ltd] Office No.901,9Th Floor Old Cgo Building, M.K.Road Vs. Lodha Supremus Churchgate Senapati Bapat Marg Mumbai-400 020 Lower Parel Mumbai-400 012 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-3064-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Prateek Jain, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Saurabh Kumar Rai, Ld. DR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

factors cast a 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

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Technotrade Impex India P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11 is treated as allowed for the statistical purposes and the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3834/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3834/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Acit-13(3)(2), Vs. M/S Technotrade Impex Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 19/40/C-2, M.K. Road, Seksaria Indl. Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Sv Road, Malad (W), Mumbai - 400064 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct1000G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & प्रत्याक्षेप सं /Co No. 159/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 3834/Mum/2016) (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Technotrade Impex India Vs. The Acit-13(3)(2), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, 19/40/C-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Seksaria Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, Chincholi Bunder Road, Mumbai - 400020 Off Sv Road, Malad (W), Mumbai - 400064 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct1000G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri H.N. Singh ( Cit Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Appeal & Cross Objection Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.03.2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam (AR)For Respondent: Shri H.N. Singh ( CIT DR)
Section 133Section 133ASection 143

case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (supra), the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have determined the addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. Once it is established that the purchases are not genuine, it can safely be concluded that the assessee has purchased

DCIT 14(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

ITA 3461/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dcit -14(2)(1), M/S Mahanagar Gas Ltd., 432, Aayakar Bhavan, Block G-33, Mgl House, 4Th Floor, M.K. Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aabcm4640G

For Appellant: Shri P.P. Jayaraman (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (Sr. DR)
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 197Section 40

case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in partly holding the addition made by the AO by stating only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases is to be taxed instead of whole transaction.” 5. Before us, the Ld. departmental representative relying on assessment order passed ... Simit P. Seth (supra) has upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total bogus purchases holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. We further notice that the AO has not rejected the sale shown

Nisha Kamdar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 5742/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.405/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) Nisha Mayur Kamdar बनाम/ Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor 705, Shashi Apartment C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Bhawan Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5742/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nisha Mayur Kamdar Income Tax Officer 32(2)(4) 705, Shashi Apartment Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Mumbai – 400 092 Bhawan Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Apdpk-8142-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Anil Thakrar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

facts and after following the ratio of Saraswathi Oil Traders Vs. CIT (SC) cited supra, I am of the opinion that it is the profit element in the total component in dispute which needs to be added to the income of the appellant. The total amount which is being treated ... which cast a 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

Mayur Kamdar, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 5741/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5089/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 32(2)(3) Mayur R.Kamdar बनाम/ Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor 705, Shashi Apartment C-11, Pratyakshar Kar Bhawan Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) Vs. Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai – 400 092 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afupk-8611-C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5741/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mayur R.Kamdar Income Tax Officer 32(2)(3) 705, Shashi Apartment Room No. 305, 3Rd Floor बनाम/ Devidas Lane, Borivali (W) C-11,Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan Vs. Mumbai – 400 092 Bkc, Bandra Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afupk-8611-C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Anil Thakrar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Aarju Garodia, Ld. Sr. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

which cast a 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 ITA No.5089/Mum/2015 & ITA No.5741/Mum/2015 Mayur Kamdar Assessment Year- 2009-2010 profit element earned by assessee against