← 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 27(2)(1), Navi Mumbai vs. Kaushal R. Sheth, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 916/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 27(2)(1) V. Shri Kaushal R Sheth 4Th Floor, Tower No.6 Prop M/S. Paras Enterprises, Vashi Railway Station Complex Printers & Stationers, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 House No.104, Bldg No.1/C, Mhada, Laxminagar, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 75

For Appellant: Shri B.N.RaoFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee in its appeal challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance at 25% of the bogus purchases by estimating the profit element in such purchases. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 and reassessments were completed ... However, vital question while considering 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 purchases themselves were completely bogus and nonexistent or that the purchases were actually made but not from

DCIT 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Ganesh Retails P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3905/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dcit-11(2)(1), Room No. 477, M/S Shree Ganesh Retails बिधम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Pvt. Ltd., 27, Hill Road, Mumbai-400 020 Near Parsi Agiyari, Bandra Vs. (W), Mumbai-400 050 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aajcs6073R (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

from the open/grey market. The CIT(A) on the basis of his aforesaid conviction restricted the addition only to the extent of the profit element embedded in making of such purchases from the open/grey market. Thus, in the backdrop of the aforesaid observations the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal ... open/grey market, as a result whereof the addition in the hands of the assessee was liable to be restricted to the extent of the profit element that would be involved in making of the purchases from the open/grey market. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the reliance placed

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Naozer B. Baldawala, Mumbai

ITA 233/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 72 & 73/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year’S: 2010-11 & 2011-12) Naozer Bejon Baldawala, Acit-19(2), Matru Mandir Buildtech India , 27 Kailash Building, Nana Chowk, Opp. बिधम/ Vs. Darshan, Kennedy Bridge, Bhatia Hospital, Tardeo Road, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-19, 400007 स्थामीरेखासं./ जीआइआयसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aacpb7254K (अऩीराथी/Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: S/Shri M M Golvala/Danshit NaikFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

open/grey market, therefore, concluded that the additions in the hands of the assessee were liable to be restricted only to the extent of the profit element involved in making of such purchases from the unknown entities. 7. That deliberating on the facts which had a bearing on the estimation ... assessee had during the course of proceedings before the CIT(A) himself offered that the addition in his hands may be restricted to the profit element embedded in the purchase transactions under consideration, which may fairly be estimated within the range of 12.5% to 25%. We are of the considered

Kaushal Rajesj Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1109/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 27(2)(1) V. Shri Kaushal R Sheth 4Th Floor, Tower No.6 Prop M/S. Paras Enterprises, Vashi Railway Station Complex Printers & Stationers, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 House No.104, Bldg No.1/C, Mhada, Laxminagar, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 75

For Appellant: Shri B.N.RaoFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee in its appeal challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the disallowance at 25% of the bogus purchases by estimating the profit element in such purchases. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 and reassessments were completed ... However, vital question while considering 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 purchases themselves were completely bogus and nonexistent or that the purchases were actually made but not from

Asst CIT 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharat Wires Ropes Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 96/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.96/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Assistant Commissioner Bharat Wires Ropes Limited Of Income Tax 524/525 बनाम/ 15(1)(2) The Corporate Centre Room No.483-A,4Th Floor Nirmal Lifestyle Vs. Aaykar Bhavan,M.K.Road Lbs Marg, Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai- 400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcb-2180-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: V.Jendardhanan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

such a situation, the addition, which ITA.No.96/Mum/2016 Bharat Wires Ropes Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 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

ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sujan Singh S. Deora, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6060/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Officer has accepted the sales and without their being any purchases there would not have been any sales, Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element embedded in the purchases to be brought to tax and restricted the addition/disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases for these two assessment years ... sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth

ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sujan Singh S. Deora, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6059/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Officer has accepted the sales and without their being any purchases there would not have been any sales, Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element embedded in the purchases to be brought to tax and restricted the addition/disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases for these two assessment years ... sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth

ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sujan Singh S. Deora, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6058/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Officer has accepted the sales and without their being any purchases there would not have been any sales, Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element embedded in the purchases to be brought to tax and restricted the addition/disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases for these two assessment years ... sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth

Pristine Engineering Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 20(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5879/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pristine Engineering Acit, Ward 20(2)/Cit Services, City 20, B-34, Nand Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Vs. Lalbaug, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aaafp1771B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)

/IT-93/ACIT-20(2)/14-15 for AY 2009-10 dated 30.06.16, it would be adequate to meet the ends of justice, if the profit element of the alleged bogus purchases is taxed instead of the whole of the amount. Accordingly, the disallowance is restricted to 24.85% (i.e. GP for A.Y.2010-11

Sujansingh Deora, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5716/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Officer has accepted the sales and without their being any purchases there would not have been any sales, Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element embedded in the purchases to be brought to tax and restricted the addition/disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases for these two assessment years ... sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth

Sujansingh Deora, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5715/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Officer has accepted the sales and without their being any purchases there would not have been any sales, Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element embedded in the purchases to be brought to tax and restricted the addition/disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases for these two assessment years ... sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth

Sujansingh Deora, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5714/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Officer has accepted the sales and without their being any purchases there would not have been any sales, Ld.CIT(A) concluded that only the profit element embedded in the purchases to be brought to tax and restricted the addition/disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases for these two assessment years ... sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5126/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 69C

purchases of steel from M/s. Karma Industries Ltd. and its associate concerns as bogus in respect of (i) Surat-Dahisar and Kolhapur Projects being profit element embedded in such purchases of Rs. 25,22,08,974/- and Rs. 6,02,61,740/- respectively @ 12.5% of the purchase value ... assessee had merely indulged in inflating the expenses by introducing the bogus purchases and it would be a fair enough to estimate the profit element embedded in such purchases. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of assessing officer in sustaining 100% addition for the purchases of material consumed

Modern Road Makers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4734/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 69C

purchases of steel from M/s. Karma Industries Ltd. and its associate concerns as bogus in respect of (i) Surat-Dahisar and Kolhapur Projects being profit element embedded in such purchases of Rs. 25,22,08,974/- and Rs. 6,02,61,740/- respectively @ 12.5% of the purchase value ... assessee had merely indulged in inflating the expenses by introducing the bogus purchases and it would be a fair enough to estimate the profit element embedded in such purchases. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the action of assessing officer in sustaining 100% addition for the purchases of material consumed

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2) Cen RG 4(2), Mumbai vs. Prateek Vijay Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 3663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cen Cir 4(2) Vs. Shri Prateek Vijay Gupta Cen. Rg. 4, R.No.411, New Harileela House, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mint Road, Fort, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaspg9494L Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Prateek Vijay Gupta Vs. Acit Rg 12(1) Now Transferred New Harileela House, To Acit Cen Cir 4 (2) 6Th Floor, Mint Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaspg9494L Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis

Section 143(3)Section 69C

extent of 12.5% (i.e. Rs. 1,17,13,995/-) of the alleged bogus purchases made of Rs. 9,37,11,967/- as the profit element embedded in such purchases and also erred in stating that the motive behind obtaining bogus bills appears to be inflation of the purchase price ... Court held that since the purchases were not bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of accounts, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of law arose in such estimation. While

Yasika Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 844/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Yasika Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Juliet Ravichandran, Shop No. 2A, Mahavir Darshan, Ito – 5(3)(4), Khetwadi, Khambata Lane, Mumbai Mumbai – 400004 Vs. Pan: Aaacy2914J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

entire amount of bogus purchases determined by the AO. Under these circumstances, the AO ought to have made addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 372 ITR 619, while ... Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) 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 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 assessee. Hence, following the principles law laid down

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh K. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7357/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mukesh K. Desai, Income Tax-25(3), 9, 2Nd Floor, Madhukunj, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, V.S. Khandekar Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpd778D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

other than those mentioned in the books of account. Under these circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 7 Assessment Year: 2011-12 10. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises ... Simit P. Seth (supra) 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. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble High

ITO WD 2(2), Kalyan vs. K Manyar, Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 6229/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6229/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S K. Manyar, Ward 2(2), Prop. Madhu H. Maniyar (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Bk No. 831, Room No. 1, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Sec. 17, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Ulhasnagar - 421503 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahhm3368J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Virag M Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Virag M Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17

entire amount of bogus purchases determined by the AO. Under these circumstances, the AO ought to have made addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises ... Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) 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. Hence, following the principles law laid down by the Hon’ble High

ACIT - 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Detection Instrument India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 6195/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6195/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Acit- 15(1)-2, Vs. M/S Detection Instruments Room No. 483-A, 4Th Floor, India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, El/36, Electronics Zone, Mumbai - 400020 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai - 400710 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1659F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Rakesh Joshi (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

erred in estimating the profit to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases of Rs. 67,43,250/- as the profit element embedded in such purchases in addition to the regular profit without giving any findings as to how 12.5% GP can be taken since the corresponding expenditure have already ... entire amount of bogus purchases determined by the AO. Under these circumstances, the AO ought to have made addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 9. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises

Shri. Hariram S. Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 15(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 2091/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2091/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Hariram S. Bishnoi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 107/111, 1St Floor, Ward 15(2) (4), 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai - 400004 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afgpb8257B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

purchases from grey market without paying VAT and other taxes. Under these circumstances, the AO ought to have made addition keeping in view the profit element embedded in the purchases in question. 8. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court In CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises ... Seth 356 ITR 451(Guj) 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. Hence, following the principles law laid down by the Hon’ble High