“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

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

ITA 4900/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 133(6)Section 147

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 Cen Cir 2(3), Mumbai vs. Hi Point Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for

ITA 4373/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 133ASection 69C

/Mum/2016 6 the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This was the view of this court in the case of Sanjay Oilcake Industries

Nehal Hasmukh Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3520/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Jayant Kumar &

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

held that Nehal H. Shah added to income of the assessee. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only the 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

Chandrika Himmatlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2833/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Chandrika Himmatlal Ito-32(1)(2) Shah,202, Samarpan 2Nd Floor, C-11, Vs. Building, Rokadia Cross Pratyaskar Bhavan, Bkc, Lane, Borivali West, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400092. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Bppps0023A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Virag H. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Virag H. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

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 6 the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly

ITO Ward - 1(1), Kalyan vs. Abdul Kayyum Khan, Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2729/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-1(1), Shri Abdul Kayyum Khan 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Vs. M/S Anjur Steel Traders Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada 1105/2-3, Dharni Arcade, Kalyan. Opp. Octroi Naka, Bhiwandi-421302. Pan No. Angpk6700L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

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 Shri Abdul Kayyum Khan 4 the assessee. That being the position, not the entire ... purchase price but only the 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

ITO 26(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Yogesh C. Kuruba, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2706/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ito-26(3)(5) Shri Yogesh C. Kuruba Room No. 504, C-11, 5Th Vs. B/4, Tower No. 1, Kurla Floor, Pratyakshakar Kamgar Chsl, Kurla (E) Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400024. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Agepk8433D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhenan, Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajesh B. Gupte, Ar Date Of Hearing : 01/08/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh B. Gupte, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhenan, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

transactions. On the other hand, the Ld. counsel of the assessee supports the order the Ld. CIT(A) and also submits that only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be arrived at and the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly estimated it @ 6%. 6. We have heard the rival

ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Pushpak Metal Industries, Mumbai

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

ITA 2508/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2508/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-19(2)(5), M/S. Pushpak Metal Industries बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Office No. 13, 2Nd Floor, 16 Khatri Bldg., 2Nd Carpenter Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Vs. Street Cp Tank, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalfp 8826 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri/Smt. N. Hemlatha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 09.10.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 10.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 19.01.2017, Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. In This Appeal, The Revenue Is Aggrieved That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Not Sustained 100% Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchases. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under:-

For Appellant: Shri/Smt. N. HemlathaFor Respondent: None

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

very basis of purchases could not be questioned.. Not the entire purchase price could be disallowed but only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income of the 4 ITO vs. M/s. Pushpak Metal Industries assessee. The estimation varies with the nature of business

Bright Steel Centre, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3005/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Bright Steel Centre Vs. Ito 19(1)(2) 72, Cp Tank Road Mumbai 1St Floor, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aadf89916F Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

above parties and only indulged in such activity of non genuine transactions to suppress the true profits and to reduce the tax liability. Therefore, profit element embedded in such purchases is taken by AO as the profit earned from purchases shown to have been made from the five parties ... without any bill. Taking all the facts into consideration and applying the logic of Simit P.Sheth case to the present case for estimating the profit element embedded on non-genuine purchases, the AO is directed to restrict the estimation @ 6.5% ( 4% VAT and 2.5% of profit margin) on the total

Shashi Kumar S. Nair, Thane vs. ITO 19(3)(4)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 6811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Shashi Kumar S. Nair Vs. Ito 19(3)(4) Office 55, Ground Floor Mumbai Wonder Complex Kapurwadi Thane (W) – 400607 Pan/Gir No. Abupn9393G Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)

books of accounts were rejected. Accordingly, there is no justification for addition of 100% of purchases. At the most profit element embodied in such purchases may be added. 10. In view of the above discussion and applying the proposition of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements

ITO WD 3(1), Kalyan vs. Bharat R Valia, Dombivali

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5357/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri D.T. Garasia (Jm) & B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148

cloth and sell finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax.' Under the circumstances and the facts of case, we request to delete the addition made ... 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

Pr Pharma Source P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 692/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannup.R Pharma Source Pvt. Ltd, A-407 Anjani Complex, 4Th Floor, Opp.Gurunank Petrol Pump, Andheri Kurla Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 099. Pan Aaecp 2829H ...... Appellant Vs. The Acit, Cir. 10(3)(2), Mumbai. .... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha

Section 143(3)Section 148

Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Sheth, 356 ITR 451(Guj) what is liable to be assessed is merely the profit element on the unproved purchases and not the entire amount of 3 purchase. Thus, considering the said ratio, I set-aside the order

ITO WD 3(5), Kalyan vs. Jayesh Velji Karia, Dombivali

In the result, both the cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 3135/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Rakhmabai Jadhav Niwas, Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., Dhorte Compound, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E), 421201 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jayesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Jainam Traders), Ward-3(5), C-38, Munshi Estate, Kalyan 1St Floor, M.G. Road, Vs. Above Mahavir Jain Dudhalay, Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080 Pan: Ablpk8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(5), Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan-Murbad Road, Nr. S.B.I., New Bharat Chs, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Jitesh Velji Karia, The Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Karia Traders), Ward-3(5), 01, Suresh Anna Dhorte Bldg., Kalyan New Bharat Chs, Vs. Dr. R.P. Road, Dombivli (E) – 421201 Pan: Agopk7897F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/10/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (AR)For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru (Sr. DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

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 our considered view, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is based

ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Jaishankar R. Mishra, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 5734/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 147

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 Jaishankkar R. Mishra Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit ... passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the addition to the extent of 6% of the purchases treated as non-genuine by estimating the profit element in such bogus purchases for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 8. In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced

ITO 26(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Jaishankar R. Mishra, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 5733/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 143(3)Section 147

Rajesh Nobert Colaco, Mumbai vs. ITO -24(3)(5), Mumbai

ITA 2894/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Rajesh Nobert Colaco Vs. Ito 24(3)(5) C-102, Hrishikesh Mumbai Apna Ghar Chs Ltd., Swami Samrth Nagar Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Adtpc8906F Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Rajesh Nobert Colaco Vs. Acit – 24(3) C-102, Hrishikesh Mumbai Apna Ghar Chs Ltd., Swami Samrth Nagar Andheri (West), Mumbai - 400053 Pan/Gir No.Adtpc8906F Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.C. Jain Revenue By Ms. N. Hemalatha

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

para-3, the AO held as under:- In the light of the foregoing and after careful consideration of the case, I hold that the profit element embedded in the purchases is to be brought to tax. Since during the year the assessee has earned gross profit @ 14%, 1 estimate

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Geoconsult- Rites Nrt 1Jv, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3851/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 143(1)Section 194CSection 194C(1)Section 40

labour; that in the case of sub-contract, the element of profit must exist and therefore, the reply of assessee that there was no profit element in the reimbursement of payment, could be verified on scrutiny of GC and Rites’ cases; and that therefore, the assessee was responsible to deduct ... 194C of the Act and the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in treating the impugned payments as reimbursement, observing that there was no profit element in the transactions. The ld. CIT(A) has ignored the finding of the AO that in case of sub-contract, there remains profit elements

DCIT Cen Cir 3(3) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Sunjyot Gems, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3239/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3239/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Sunjyot Gems Central Circle 3(3) Ae 7030 R.No.1913 बनाम/ Bharat Diamond Bourse Air India Building Bandra Kurla Complex Vs. 19Th Floor, Nariman Point Bandra East Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfs-9404-Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Suman Kumar, Ld. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

group casted 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

Dhiraj Ramesh Dama, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2674/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ritika Agarwal,Ld.ARFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)

assessee but the same could not be discharged fully. 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 27(2)(4), Navi Mumbai vs. Nayan K Shukla, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1717/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer Nayan K. Shukla Ward 27(2)(4) Shop No. 11, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, 418, Tower No. 6 Raj Rajeshwari Apartments Vashi Railway Station Complex Narayan Nagar, Lbs Marg Vs. Vashi Ghatkopar (W) Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai-400 086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aarps-9193-D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

served, which cast 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 5 Nayan K.Shukla Assessment Year 2010-11 possible purchase

ITO WD 2(4), Kalyan vs. Santoksingh M Gulwan, Ulhasnagar

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6723/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6723/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4) Santoksingh M Gulwan Prop. Satguru Traders 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza बनाम/ Bk No.63/673, Ground Floor, Near Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Satnam B. Apartment, Gol Maidan, Vs. Kalyan Ulhasnagar – 421 001 Kalyan-421 301 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Abkpg-7891-E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Pooja Swaroop, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

served, which cast 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