← 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

Alamgir Kasam Ali, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1030/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh R.ShahFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

Rs.7,36,556 and was added by the AO to the total income of the assessee. 3.6 However, while working out the profit element involved on account of inflation of purchases, the AO took the quantum of the non- genuine purchases at Rs.29,46,224 as against Rs.40 ... bogus purchases in the case of manufacturers was sustained at 25% of the alleged bogus bogus purchases. 4.1.13 The AO has only added the profit element embedded in the aforesaid bogus purchases @ 25% which seems to be justified in view of the nature of the business of the appellant, comparative

Mukesh Radhyesham Goyal, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 7276/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju (Sr.DR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

accepted by the AO, the 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 assessee. The estimation varies with the nature of business and no uniform

Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5087/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathy, CIT [DR]
Section 153A

that if purchases themselves are not bogus but are shown to have been made from bogus parties, not the entire purchase but only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income of the assessee. 3. That, as on 13-02-2013, i.e., the date ... that if purchases themselves are not bogus but are shown to have been made from bogus parties, not the entire purchase but only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income of the assessee. 3. That, as on 13-02-2013, i.e., the date

Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

Appeals are partly allowed

ITA 5062/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri O. P. Kanti.T. Appeal Nos. 5087 To 5091/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 3492 N A N D I.T. Appeal Nos. 5062 To 5066/Del/2016 Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2013-14 Panchsheel Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, H–169, Sector : 63, Vs. Central Circle, Noida [U.P.] Ghaziabad. Pan : Aaecp 5726 F (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. A.; Department By : Ms. Paramita Tripathy, Cit [Dr]; Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2017 O R D E R Per I. C. Sudhir, J. M. :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehra, C. AFor Respondent: Ms. Paramita Tripathy, CIT [DR]
Section 153A

that if purchases themselves are not bogus but are shown to have been made from bogus parties, not the entire purchase but only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income of the assessee. 3. That, as on 13-02-2013, i.e., the date ... that if purchases themselves are not bogus but are shown to have been made from bogus parties, not the entire purchase but only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income of the assessee. 3. That, as on 13-02-2013, i.e., the date

Rajiv I. Gandhi, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7417/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Rajiv I. Gandhi Income Tax Officer 34 Bajaj Society, Bajaj Rd Ward-25(3)(3) Ville Parle (W) Vs. R. No. 608 C-10, Mumbai-400 057 Pratykshkar Bhvan Bkc Pin- Aadpg3967F Bandra, Mumbai-400 050 Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. Shri Rajesh Gupta, Ar Revenue By .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 25-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 09-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 147

have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Now, before me, assessee contended that only profit element applied by CIT(A) is higher as the assessee deals in the business of retail trading of pharmaceuticals. The learned Counsel Page 2 of 3 Rajiv ... case, I find reasonable profit rate of 10% will meet the end of justice for the reason that the assessee has already declared profit element on the sale made out of bogus purchases. Accordingly, I direct the AO to re-compute income after applying profit rate @ 10% of the bogus

JCIT, Chennai vs. C.H.Robinson Worldwide Freight India P Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1181/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1181/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Respondent: Mr.T. Banusekar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 172Section 172(1)Section 194CSection 195Section 40Section 9(1)(i)Section 90

could include technical charges or even interest which falls under the purview of taxation u/s.9(1) of IT Act, 1961 and could include the profit element and hence TDS need to be deducted. Accordingly the amount of Rs.17,76,496/- was added to the taxable income of the assessee u/s.40 ... material placed before us. The AO accepted that the payment was towards reimbursement of expenses. The reimbursement of expenses does not include any profit element and reimbursable on actual expenditure basis. Sec.195 attracts only in the case of profits involved in the payment. The Ld.AR argued that the broad heads

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Alka N Madhani, Mumbai

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

ITA 2397/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) I.T.A. No. 2397/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12)

Section 133(6)Section 69C

facts and after following the ratio of Saraswathi Oil Traders vs. CIT(SC) cited supra, 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. It is seen from record that ... decided the case of the appellant for the immediately preceding A.Y. 2009-10 wherein she had taken 8% of the disputed purchases as fair profit element which is required to be added. The total amount which is being treated as bogus by the AO is Rs 39,61,591/-. Thus

Chandrakant T. Goradia, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1704/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm Chandrakant T. Goradia Income Tax Officer 502 Ruby Tower, Dadabhai X Rd Ward No. 25(2)(2) No. 3, Ville Parle (W) Vs. C-10 R. No. 507 Mumbai-50 Pratyakshakar Bhavan Bkc 2 Pan No. Aeipg6213P Mumbai-50 Appellant .. Respondent .. Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar Assessee By Revenue By .. Shri Purushottam Kumar, Dr .. Date Of Hearing 24-05-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 07-06-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

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

case where the purchases themselves are not bogus but the purchase parties shown in books are. Therefore, what needed to be taxed was the profit element embedded in such transactions. It has been held in the case of Page 2 of 4 Chandrakant T. Goradia A.Y:09-10 Simit ... rate of profit and it varies with the nature of business. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. AO has estimated profit element embedded in such bogus purchase at 12.5% of the total purchase shown from the said eight parties. I am, therefore, of the view that

Navin Hiranandani Karmiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1658/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee preferred second appeal before Tribunal. 5. Now, before us, assessee contended that only profit element is higher as the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in computer, spare parts and assessee’s disclosed profit is at 3.10%. The learned

Navin Hiranandani Karmiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1649/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, assessee preferred second appeal before Tribunal. 5. Now, before us, assessee contended that only profit element is higher as the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in computer, spare parts and assessee’s disclosed profit is at 3.10%. The learned

ITO 32(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shaitansingh M. Rathod, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 28/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.28/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Income Tax Officer 32(3)(4) Shaitansingh M. Rathod Room No. 103, 1St Floor, E/81 बनाम/ Building No. C-11, Shree Mahavir Apartment, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc Ratnan Nagar Vs. Bandra (E) Dahisar(E) Mumbai-400 025 Mumbai 400 068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Agjpr-3582-K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Dr. A.K. Nayak, Ld. Dr ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : B.G. Sakaria, Ld. Ar

For Appellant: Dr. A.K. Nayak, Ld. DRFor Respondent: B.G. Sakaria, Ld. AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

assessee are audited. The payments are through banking channels.Therefore, in such a situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these transactions to factorize profit earned by assessee against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus

ITO 32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Hiren C Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-objection is partly allowed and that of revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Shri Hiren C Parekh, Room No.203, C-11, 2Nd Floor,, Prop M/S Asiatic Metals & Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Alloys, फनधभ/ Bandra-Kurla Complex, 402, Narmada Apartments, Vs. Bandra (E), Simpoli Road, Haridas Nagar, Mumbai-400051 Borivali (W), Mumbia-400092 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : Cross-Objection No.17/Mum/2017 Arising Out Of Ita No.01/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri Hiren C Parekh, Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), Room No.203, C-11, 2Nd Floor,, Prop M/S Asiatic Metals & Alloys, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, फनधभ/ 402, Narmada Apartments, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Simpoli Road, Haridas Nagar, Bandra (E), Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbia-400092 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms.Snehal R ShahFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshan
Section 133(6)Section 69C

factor of ,purchases is not being disputed, but the genuineness of the sellers is being disputed, in my considered opinion, disallowance of the profit element embedded in the impugned purchases would serve the purpose of justice. In this regard, I rely on the decision of the Hon.ble Gujarat High Court ... case' of Simit Sheth pronounced on 16.1.2013 wherein the Hon.ble Court have held that "not the entire purchase, but only profit element ernbeded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee.". As regards to what is the appropriate profit element percentage, while there

M/S Odisha State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 223/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack06 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year :2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri Bhagaban Panda/D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR
Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234CSection 263

passed the impugned order u/s.263 of the Act to revise the said order of assessment. The impugned order was passed on three grounds: (i) profit element embedded in the work-in-progress was to be taken into account as per Accounting Standard on construction (AS-7) was not added ... passed order u/s.263 in the following terms: “The basis issue in the instant case is the valuation of work-in- progress (WIP) and profit element contained therein. In accordance with the accounting stardard-7, which is mandatory for percentage completion method, the profit in respect

ITO Ward - 3(1), Kalyan vs. Bakshish M. Malhotra, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2126/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh &
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

Tax/VAT, etc. The CIT(A), therefore, held that the entire amount of purchases could not be added to the total income, but only the profit element relatable to such unproved purchases. For this reason, the CIT(A) took into consideration the gross profit and the net profit declared ... that the CIT(A) should have confirmed the addition of the entire amount of unproved purchases of Rs.50,77,857/- and not merely the profit element on such purchases estimated @ 12.5%. The ld. DR also made an alternate plea that even the estimation of addition @ 12.5% of the unproved purchases

ITO 19(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shravan K Bishnoi, Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2047/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2047/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Income Tax Officer Shravan K. Bishnoi 19(3)(3) Prop. M/S Ganpat Steel 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir C/O Poonam Enterprises बनाम/ Tardeo Road Ground Floor, Shop No.2 Vs. Mumbai – 400007 Khemraj Bhavan Near Alankar Cinema Mumbai – 400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Amdpb-5985-G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Arvind Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in view of reasoning given for estimation in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, I hold that the profit element embedded and suppressed in the alleged purchases were to the extent of 25%. Hence, addition to the extent of 25 % is upheld and balance ... assessee is in possession of basic purchase documents. Therefore, in such a situation, the addition, which could be made, was to account for profit element embedded in these transactions, which Ld. CIT(A) has rightly done so. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) being, fair and reasonable, require

Ness Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 872/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm S.A.No.292/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.872/Mum/2017) (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Ness Technologies Vs. Dcit Cent-Cit – 6(1), (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai – 400 021 Unit No.501, Interface, New Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aaaca9649L Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 92C

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

ACIT 25(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Shree Ganesh Developers, Mumbai

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

ITA 4470/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 133(6)

case of CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd (355 ITR 290) and CIT Vs. Simit P Sheth has held that the profit element involved in the alleged bogus purchases is required to be assessed. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the Mumbai bench of Tribunal has deleted the addition

DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai vs. SMC Sbk Jv, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3537/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Dcit Cir 29(3), Mumbai – Vs. Smc Sbk Jv 400 051 Shop No.2, Aakruti Elgance, 90 Feet Road Govanpada, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080 Pan/Gir No. Ablfs7647H Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 48(5)

sell 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 San jay Oilcake Inds ... books are. Therefore the entire purchase from these 6 parties cannot be added as bogus and what needs to be taxed is the profit element embedded in such transactions. Estimations ranging from 12.5% to 25% have been upheld by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, depending upon the nature

ITO 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai vs. Sandeep Laxman Shirke, Navi Mumbai

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 7043/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7043/Mum/2013 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Income Tax Officer 22(3)(4) Sandeep Laxman Shirke 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 302, Navyug Apartments बनाम/ Vashi Railway Station Complex, Plot No.82,Sector-44 Vs. Vashi Seawoods, Nerul West Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai – 400 706 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & Cross Objection No.23/Mum/2015 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sandeep Laxman Shirke Income Tax Officer 302, Navyug Apartments 22(3)(4) बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6 Plot No.82,Sector-44 Seawoods, Nerul West Vashi Railway Station Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 706 Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Ahzps-4177-N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: K.M. Kapadia ,Ld. ARFor Respondent: Arvind Kumar, Ld. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

revenue, which is not justified at all. Therefore, under the circumstances, at the most, the assessee could suffer disallowance to account for profit element only embedded in these transactions, which Ld. CIT(A) has rightly done. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the factual matrix and Gross Profit earned

Dhaddda Gems Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as 10

ITA 7310/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 147

agree with the submissions of the assessee fully on the ground that assessee had himself made the offer to make addition of the profit element embedded in the amount of bogus purchases. But he reduced the rate of addition from 12.5% to 8%. And thus gave part relief by observing