“profit element”

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rizvi Land Developments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

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. (supra), while upholding ... 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

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Re Infra P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Re Infra. Private Limited, – Tax – 14 (3) (1), Office No. 3, Gangatara, Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, 73 Pestom Sagar Road No. 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chembur, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400089 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7593R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

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 assessee. 5 Assessment Year: 2010-11 10. Since, it has been established

Associate Plantations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

auditor, in my view, there is no necessity to disallow entire amount of alleged bogus purchases. I notice that the AO had estimated the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases at 3 Associate Plantations Pvt. Ltd. 12.50% and in my view, it appears to be reasonable. Accordingly

Dharmesh Bhagat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(2)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

prove the genuineness of the purchases. Since the assessee had reconciled the purchases and sales, the Assessing Officer took the view that the profit element embedded in such non-genuine purchases alone should be brought to tax. In this regard, he placed reliance on the decision rendered ... articles from some other persons, which would result in saving of taxes and reducing in prices also. Hence the Assessing Officer has estimated the profit element involved in such purchases at 25%, which was reduced to 12.5% by the learned CIT(A). However, considering the fact that the assessee

Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Sahakar Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal raised by

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassistant Commissioner Of M/S Sahakar Enterprises , 201, Ashirwad, 10Th Road , Income-Tax -32(3) Mumbai, Room No.,108, 1St Floor, Building Daulat Nagar, Borivali (E), Vs. No.C-11, Pratyaskshkar Bhavan, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex , Pan:Abkfs1799M Bandra(E) Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By – Anuj Kishandwala-Ar Revenue Represented By-- Sh. V. Justine –Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2017 Date Of Order: 18.10.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed

profit ratio of the impugned purchased (Rs.2159 8572/-). We have noticed that ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has restricted the addition on the basis of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases. We are of the considered opinion that under Income Tax Act only real income can be taxed by the Revenue

Ness Technologies (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai

referred to voluminous material placed in the Paper Book, which was also available to the lower authorities, to point out that there was no profit-element in such arrangement of recovery of out of pocket expenses.. 13.2 On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative appearing for the Revenue emphasised ... assessee, its recovery from the associated enterprises, which-in turn recovers it from the end clients, there is no involvement of any profit-element in the hands of the associated enterprises. Therefore, it would be wrong on the part of the income tax authorities to take a position and infer

Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citybuild Arcade P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

laws cited (supra), I estimate the suppressed profit to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases made from the bogus entities, as the suppressed profit element embedded in such purchases. This estimation is in addition to the GP shown by the appellants.” 3. Against the above order, Revenue

Sumit M. Malhotra, Kalyan vs. ITO 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6697 & 6698/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Mr. Sumit M. Malhotra Income-Tax Officer 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, C/O. M/S. S. M. Steel Traders बनाम/ 702, “A” Wing, Archies Apartment, Murbad Road, Vs. Oak Baug, Near Railway Station, Kalyan (W) – 421 301 Kalyan (W) – 421 301 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaypm 8541 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of accounts. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. So much is clear by decision of this Court. In particular

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Manek Gems & Art International, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

after concluding that the addition in respect of the aforesaid bogus purchase transactions was liable to be restricted only as regards the profit element that would be involved in making of the purchases of the goods under consideration by the assessee from the open/grey market, therein took into consideration ... relevant aspects which would have a strong bearing on the determining of such profit element. It was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee would had procured diamonds from the open/grey market at a substantially cheaper rate, as against the price at which the same would be available from

R R Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. R.R. Enterprises, Acit 13(2) B-9/10, Kanmoor House, Mumbai 281/287, Narshi Natha Vs. Street, Mumbai- 400 009 Pan: Aaafr 3906N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri A.C. Jhaveri, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R. & Shri R.P. Meena, Cit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 O R D E R

explain the purchases. However, the entire purchase from these 2 parties cannot be added as bogus and what needs to be taxed is the profit element embedded in such transaction. I find that the AO has disallowed 25% of these bogus purchases and also estimated GP @ 5.74% of the bogus

ITO 20(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jai Prakash Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Shri Jai Prakash Jindal, Ward 20(2)(1), (Prop. Of M/S. Three A Room No.216, Brothers), Vs. Piramal Chamber, 19/8, Madhkar Chs.,. Lalbaug, R.A. Kidwai Road, Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai-400 031 Pan: Aaapj6514A (Appellant) (Respondent)

explain the purchases. However, the entire purchase from these 3 parties cannot be added as bogus and what needs to be taxed is the profit element embedded in such transaction. The AO has disallowed 100% of these bogus purchases. While doing so, the AO has lost sight of the fact

DCIT 6(2), Mumbai vs. Kpmg Advisory Services P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad() & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Insofar as disallowance of support service charges, the CIT(A) observed that support service charges payments made to KPMG are purely reimbursements without any profit element and, therefore, cannot be treated as income chargeable to tax so as to attract tax deduction at source. However, the only exception ... connection and consumables database, etc. The assessee further contended that support service charges paid to KPMG is on cost to cost basis without any profit element and such expenditure has been reimbursed on actual cost incurred by M/s KPMG. Therefore, the assessee is not required to deduct tax at source

Pravin Thanmal Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 13(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4162/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Pravin Thanmal Shah Huf Asst. Cit(A), Range-32(2), बनाम/ 202, Shreenath Krupa, C-11, Room No. 308, Pratyaksha Kar 5Th Carter Road, Borivali (E), Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Mumbai-400 066 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaghp 2293 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 12.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Wherein Reopening As Well As 100% Addition For The Bogus Purchases Has Been Challenged.

mentioned in the list of hawala operators. Therefore, after considering the totality of facts I am of an opinion that it is the profit element on the total component in dispute which needs to be added to the income of the appellant. The appellant has shown gross profit rate

ITO 32(1)5, Mumbai vs. Empee Engineers Corporation, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Empee Engineering Corporation V. Ito 32(1)(5) 12/8, Lakdi Bunder, Darukhana, Reay Mumbai Road, Mumbai – 400 010

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 is to be brought to tax and since the assessee has shown the Gross Profit rate ... 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

Empee Engineering Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(5), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Empee Engineering Corporation V. Ito 32(1)(5) 12/8, Lakdi Bunder, Darukhana, Reay Mumbai Road, Mumbai – 400 010

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 is to be brought to tax and since the assessee has shown the Gross Profit rate ... 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 Cir 3, Thane vs. T A George Kutty, Thane

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-3 Shri T.A. George Kutty Room No. 02, 6Th Prop. Of M/S G.K. Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Construction B 843, Midc, Wagle Indl. Dakak Engg., Estate, Ghodbunder Road, Thane(W)-400604. Thane-400607 Pan No. Adopg7694M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Assessee By: None Date Of Hearing : 21/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

purchases were not bogus but were made from parties other than those mentioned in the books of account, not entire purchase price but only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only ... profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court has referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly

Deepesh H. Janani, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Deepesh Hasmukh Ito-25(2)(3) Janani,6, Meghdoot Society Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 6Thgulmohar Cross Road, Mumbai. Jvpd Scheme Mumbai-400049 Pan No. Aabpj5027D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S.M. Bandi, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

grossly erred in law as well as on facts in disallowing the addition of Rs.9,30,930/- by estimating 12.5% as profit element on the alleged bogus purchase from four parties amounting to Rs.74,47,440/-. 2. The Appellant humbly prays that the addition made by the Ld. A.O. & partly

Tushar A. Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward - 20(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Tushar A. Shah Ito-20(3)(4), (Huf) 202, 2Nd Floor, Room No. 616, 6Th Floor, Vs. Sumer Tower No.1, Piramal Chambers, 108, Seth Motisha Lalbaug, Lane, Buculla, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400010. Pan No. Aaaht9068F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Rajat Mittal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

materials were received in respect of these purchases which could have been included in the closing stock. Therefore, the AO estimated the profit element @ 12.5% on the purchase amount of Rs.5,20,83,614/-. The disallowance made by the AO thus comes to Rs.65,10,451/-. 4. Aggrieved

ITO 32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Empee Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S. Empee Engineering Corporation V. Ito 32(1)(5) 12/8, Lakdi Bunder, Darukhana, Reay Mumbai Road, Mumbai – 400 010

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 is to be brought to tax and since the assessee has shown the Gross Profit rate ... 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