← 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

Kinjal Construction Co. & Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is party allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4383/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Kinjal Construction Co. & Ito 18(2)(4) Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Office Room No. 109, Piramal No. 101, 1St Floor, Prathamesh Chamber, 1St Floor, Lalbaug, Vs. Apartments, Old College Road, Mumbai-400012. Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Pan: Aaaam8709M (Appellant) (Respondent) Ito 21(2)(2) M/S. Kinjal Construction Co. & Room No. 110, 1St Floor, Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Office No. 101, 1St Floor, Prathamesh Piramal Chamber, Parel, Mumbai-400012. Vs. Apartments, Old College Road, Dadar, Mumbai-400028 Pan: Aaaam8709M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. B. Sanghvi (AR)For Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist (DR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

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 non existent or that the purchases were actually 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

ITO WD 3(2), Thane vs. Rajendra B. Jain, Thane

In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 2932/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri. D.T. Garasia & Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year 2009 – 10 Income Tax Officer V. Rajendra B Jain Ward 3(2), Thane Prop. Rainbow Wroght Iron Room No.04J, 6Th Floor, Furniture, 16, Lily Apartment Ashar It Park Aghayari Lane, Tembhi Naka Midc, Wagle Indl. Estate Thane (W) -400 601 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan No.Aappj3404J (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen Respondent By Shri N.A. Kulkarni C.O No.186/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 2932/Mum/2016) Rajendra B Jain V. Income Tax Officer Prop. Rainbow Wroght Iron Ward 3(2), Thane Room No.04J, 6Th Floor, Furniture, 16, Lily Apartment Aghayari Lane, Tembhi Naka Ashar It Park Thane (W) -400 601 Midc, Wagle Indl. Estate Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan No.Aappj3404J (Appellant ) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri N.A. Kulkarni Respondent By Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen

account of purchase were held in the closing stock and corresponding sales were effect in subsequent year. The only approach will be only profit element must be added not the whole of the purchase can be added. Therefore we ITA.NO.2932/Mum/16 & C.O.No.186/Mum/16 Rajendra B. Jain respectfully following the decision ... from the parties other than those mentioned in the books of account. That being the position, not the entire purchase price but only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the income of the assessee. In essence, the Tribunal only estimated the possible profit