← 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

ACIT 27(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Mumbai

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

ITA 3617/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3617/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The A.C.I.T.-27(3), Vs. Shri Vikrant Vikas Raikar, 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, Prop. M/S Elegant Construction, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Plot No. 8, Hotel Pearl, Vashi, D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai - 400071 Mumbai - 400071 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpr2711C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia (DR)
Section 143

that when t purchases were not bogus, but had been made from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of accounts, the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee’s income. In the case under consideration, the purchases have been made ... hawala operators provided by the Sales Tax Department. The total of the purchase from these parties was Rs. 68,29,508/- and therefore, the profit element would be Rs. 6,82,950/- only. 2.4 In view of the above discussion, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is restricted

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Ganesh J. Modi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2770/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

Simit Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases made as profit element embedded in it. 6. We first deal with the 1st ground of appeal. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that during the course ... Gujarat High Court in Simit Sheth (supra) and sustained the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases made as profit element embedded in it. 11. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that (i) the AO generally alleges modus operandi to decrease true profits without setting

Ganesh J Modi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the AY 2010-11 of the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1967/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ganesh J Modi Acit Circle 19(1), 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Vs. Room No. 203, 2Nd G Mahimtura Marg, Floor, Matru Mandir, 3Rdkumbharwada, Tardeo, Mumbai-400004 Mumbai-400007 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit Circle 19(1), Ganesh J Modi Room No. 203, 2Nd Vs. 115/28 J.K. Building, Dr. M Floor, Matru Mandir, G Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 Pan No. Aacpm0690C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, Ar Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 08/09/2017

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)

Simit Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) and restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases made as profit element embedded in it. 6. We first deal with the 1st ground of appeal. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that during the course ... Gujarat High Court in Simit Sheth (supra) and sustained the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the purchases made as profit element embedded in it. 11. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that (i) the AO generally alleges modus operandi to decrease true profits without setting

Mansukhlal H. Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 5645/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5645/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 5646/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Mansukhlal H Mehta, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 32(2)(3), (Prop. Of M/S United Engineering), Pratayksh Kar Bhavan, Bkc, B-702, Marble Arch, Mumbai 51St Tps Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai - 400092 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalps3521B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jeevraj P. Jain (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, the Ld. CIT (A) sustained the addition to the extent of 13.85% holding that the profit element on the total component in dispute needs to be added to the income of the assessee. We further notice that ... 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. Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2012-2013 7. So in the light