← 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

Asst CIT 26(3), Mumbai vs. Saini Electronic Security System, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2225/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhi.T.A. No.2225/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ Acit, Circle-26(3), M/S. Saini Electronic Mumbai. Security System, Vs. 26-A, Narayan Plaza, Unit No.6, 1St Floor, Chandivali, Opp. Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka, Mumbai-72. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abafs0771M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O.No.192/M/2016 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2225/M/2015) (Assessment Year: 2010-2011) फनाभ/ M/S. Saini Electronic Security Acit, Circle-26(3), System, Mumbai. Vs. 26-A, Narayan Plaza, Unit No.6, 1St Floor, Chandivali, Opp. Saki Vihar Road, Saki Naka, Mumbai-72. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abafs0771M (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Sanjeev Lalan प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev LalanFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DR
Section 133(6)

entire purchases from these parties cannot be treated as bogus and added to income because what needs to be taxed is the profit element embedded in such transaction. (reliance is placed on the decision of CIT vs. Bholath Plyfab Pvt Ltd [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj.). Estimation of profit ranging

ITO 29(1)92), Mumbai vs. Chirag C Pujara, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 7661/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 7661/Mum/2014 (यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer-29(1)(2), Vs. Shri Chirag C Pujara Room No.103, 1St Floor, B-704, Kalpa Nagari, Bal Rajeshwar Road, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vaishali Nagar, Mulund, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400080 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. अऩीराथी /Appellant प्रत्मथी /Respondent ..

For Appellant: Shri Rajat MittalFor Respondent: Shri Bhadresh Doshi
Section 69C

therefore directed to disallow the 10% of the alleged bogus purchase, which comes to Rs.1,14,718/- being the profit element from the purchase made from the three parties namely G R Tradelink, V M Udyog, and Sheetal Trading Company during the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition

DCIT 15(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pci Analytics P.Tld, Mumbai

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1913/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

parties, hence, in my view the entire purchases cannot be added as income of the appellant. What needs to be taxed is only the profit element embedded in these purchases. 6.4 Identical issue came up before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Income ... whom such purchases were made bogus--Questions of fact—Tribunal finding assessee did purchase cloth and sell finished fabrics--Not entire purchase price but profit element embedded in purchases liable to tax--Income-tax Act, 1061. The assessee, for the assessment year 2005-06, was engaged in the business

Nisrin Deesawala, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 953/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri C.N. Prasadassessment Year: 2011-12 Nisrin Deesawala, Ito-17(1)(3), Prop Shabbir Traders, Mumbai 602, 6Th Flr, Ketan Apts, Vs. 22, Belvedre Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 010 Pan: Akvpd6997J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Yadav, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Yadav, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

time the entire purchases from these parties cannot be added as bogus. Ld. CIT(A) held that what needs to be taxed is the profit element embedded in such transactions only. Therefore the Ld. CIT(A) estimated the gross profit ratio on such purchases at 2.15% which according

ITO 20(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Lifetchniques, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be Dismissed

ITA 306/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. K. Mishra
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69C

explain the purchases. Therefore 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. I therefore hold that it would be fair to the appellant that the disallowance on the issue of bogus purchase ... ITAT (Del) and Madhukant B. Gandhi Vs. ITO, ITA No.1950/Mum/2009 ITAT Mumbai B Bench dated 23.12.2010, the profit element was taken into consideration for tax which seems quite justifiable. Moreover, the CIT(A) has also relied upon the law cited as Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Simit P. Sheth

ITO, WD-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Karsan Nandu, Mumbai

In the result, in my view, order of CIT(A) deserves to be set-aside and Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of Rs

ITA 2651/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: (A.Y : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Keyuri DesaiFor Respondent: Shri S.R. Kirtane
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

sales. The CIT(A) found some force in the said plea and he proceeded to scale down the addition to the extent of profit element embedded in such bogus purchases. Accordingly, CIT(A) applied the profit rate of 12.5% on the bogus purchases in order to retain the addition ... deleted. On the other hand, Revenue has preferred an appeal challenging the decision of CIT(A) in sustaining the addition to the extent of profit element in the bogus purchases as against the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the entire amount of purchases. Since the cross- grounds arise from

DCIT (It)-4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Wns North America Inc, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground Nos.3 and 4 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1614/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

without any mark up. Similar submissions were also advanced before the DRP contending that the reimbursement of international telecom connectivity charges was without any profit element and hence the same could not be considered as its income. Not convinced with the assessee’s submissions, the A.O. treated the payment received ... taxable, notwithstanding the fact that the assessee named and claimed it as reimbursement of expenses. Not only the reimbursement of expenses should be without profit element, no attempt should be made to bifurcate the price of a contract into different parts with the intention of avoiding tax by slicing away

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Jk Surface Coating P.Tld, Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6848/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial Of Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, 10(3) Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6848/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) The Dy. Commissioner Of Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial 10(3) Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Ms. Jigna Parekh, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

found to be within a narrow range. Observing all these factors and relying upon various judicial pronouncements, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that only profit element embedded in the bogus purchases was required to be added to the income of the assessee. Ultimately, he upheld disallowance to the extent ... entire purchases do not deserve disallowance rather some adhoc disallowance ranging from 5% to 12.5% has been found to be a reasonable estimation of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases particularly when material consumption factor do not show abnormal deviations. We also observe that CIT(A) has enhanced

Jk Surface Coatings P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6769/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial Of Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, 10(3) Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Mumbai स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No. 6848/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) The Dy. Commissioner Of Jk Surface Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax (Dcit) बिाम/ Neel Siddhi Enclave-Commercial 10(3) Complex, Plot-48/9, Sector-14, Vashi, Mumbai Vs. Navi Mumbai – 400 703 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacj8308H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Ms. Jigna Parekh, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Revenue By : Shri C. S. Sharma, Dr

For Appellant: Ms. Jigna Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

found to be within a narrow range. Observing all these factors and relying upon various judicial pronouncements, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that only profit element embedded in the bogus purchases was required to be added to the income of the assessee. Ultimately, he upheld disallowance to the extent ... entire purchases do not deserve disallowance rather some adhoc disallowance ranging from 5% to 12.5% has been found to be a reasonable estimation of profit element embedded in the bogus purchases particularly when material consumption factor do not show abnormal deviations. We also observe that CIT(A) has enhanced

Asst DIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai vs. Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1406/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 234B

India, the expenses in respect of such international telecom connectivity are reimbursed by WNS India to the assessee at cost without any profit element. The assessee also submitted that the amounts received from WNS India are merely in the nature of reimbursement for payments made by it to the international ... data to its customers and vice versa. It was further submitted that since the reimbursement was purely on cost and did not include any profit element, the receipt thereof should not to be taxed in its hands. Reliance was placed on following judgments dealing with non-taxability of reimbursement

Wns Global Services (Uk) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ADIT (It) 2(2), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6411/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 115ASection 144C(3)Section 234B

India, the expenses in respect of such international telecom connectivity are reimbursed by WNS India to the assessee at cost without any profit element. The assessee also submitted that the amounts received from WNS India are merely in the nature of reimbursement for payments made by it to the international ... data to its customers and vice versa. It was further submitted that since the reimbursement was purely on cost and did not include any profit element, the receipt thereof should not to be taxed in its hands. Reliance was placed on following judgments dealing with non-taxability of reimbursement

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Vipin B Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6821/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh A C I T – 17(3) Shri Vipin B. Shah Room No. 614, 6Th Floor 206, Amit Industrial Premises Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Co.Op Society Ltd. Mumbai 400012 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent Shri Vipin B. Shah A C I T – 17(3) 206, Amit Industrial Premises Room No. 614, 6Th Floor Co.Op Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ranatir Gupta
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

learned CIT(A) was of the view that what is to be disallowed in the case of alleged bogus purchases is only the profit element embedded in such purchases shown to have been made from non-existent parties and not the peak amount of alleged bogus purchases as held

Vipin Bhimraj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 6381/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Amarjit Singh A C I T – 17(3) Shri Vipin B. Shah Room No. 614, 6Th Floor 206, Amit Industrial Premises Piramal Chambers, Parel Vs. Co.Op Society Ltd. Mumbai 400012 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent Shri Vipin B. Shah A C I T – 17(3) 206, Amit Industrial Premises Room No. 614, 6Th Floor Co.Op Society Ltd. Vs. Piramal Chambers, Parel 61 Dr. S.S. Road, Parel (E) Mumbai 400012 Mumbai 400012 Pan – Alips2377R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Ranatir Gupta
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

learned CIT(A) was of the view that what is to be disallowed in the case of alleged bogus purchases is only the profit element embedded in such purchases shown to have been made from non-existent parties and not the peak amount of alleged bogus purchases as held

Rushi Housecon P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7163/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am M/S Rushi Housecon P. Ltd Vs. Dy. Commissioner Income Tax C/O Bharat K. Patel & Co. 402, 9(3), Aaykar Bhavan, New Rishikesh Apt. Opp. N.L. High School, Marine Lines, M.K. Road, S.V. Road, Malad (West) Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400020 Pan:Aabcr8701K Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By .. None .. Revenue By Shri B.S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 15-11-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 15-11-2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)

view that assessee might have earned little more profit on these bogus purchases i.e. after purchasing from Grey market and hence a reasonable profit element can be estimated. Hence, we direct the AO to disallowed 10% of the profit on the above bogus purchases of Rs.8,70,345 and restrict

Ness Technologies (India) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, whereas the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Ravish Soodness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Unit 501, Interface, New Link Road, Malad (West) Mumbai 400 064. Pan:Aaaca 9649L ...... Appellant Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 020 .... Respondent It(Tp)A No. 1006/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dcit, Central Circle -6(1), Mumbai 400 020 ... Appellant Vs. Ness Technologies (India) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Assessee By : S/Shri M.P.Lohia /Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By : Shri Debashish Chand Date Of Hearing : 23/08 /2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2016

For Appellant: S/Shri M.P.Lohia /Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chand
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 33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Badriprasad B Mistry, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee’s cross objection are dismissed

ITA 218/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri M. K. Agarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.218/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ito-33(1)(2), Badriprasad B. Misty बनाम/ C-11, R. No. 306, Pratyaksh Kar A-401, Panchsheel Residency, Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Sector No. 6, Mahavir Nagar, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acspm 5897 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : ""या"ेप सं./C.O. No.121/Mum/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 218/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Badriprasad B. Misty Ito-33(1)(2), बनाम/ A-401, Panchsheel Residency, C-11, R. No. 306, Pratyaksh Kar Sector No. 6, Mahavir Nagar, Bhavan, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 (""या"ेपक /Cross Objector) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri J. P. Jangid
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 69C

Gujarat High Court, she held that the entire purchases cannot be added to the income of the assessee, but only the profit element of such purchase turnover has to be treated as his income. Accordingly, she proceeded to estimate the profit at 8% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.72 ... failed to prove beyond doubt that the purchases made from the concerned parties are genuine, there is no other option but to estimate the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases. Moreover, we have also noted that the assessee himself before the A.O. as well

Pratap U Purohit, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1021/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.A.DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kapadia
Section 69C

assessee in the assessment year 2012- 13 in respect of purchases of Rs.92,40,232/-, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of 15% of profit element on such purchases which works out to be Rs.13,86,035/-, The precise observation of CIT(A) is as under:- 5.1 I have gone ... accepted in the same statement that he ploughed back the cash so generated into the business itself it is fair to decide that only profit element on this component should be brought to tax and it is decided that the profit of the appellant should be taken

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5193/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri R.A.DhyaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kapadia
Section 69C

assessee in the assessment year 2012- 13 in respect of purchases of Rs.92,40,232/-, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of 15% of profit element on such purchases which works out to be Rs.13,86,035/-, The precise observation of CIT(A) is as under:- 5.1 I have gone ... accepted in the same statement that he ploughed back the cash so generated into the business itself it is fair to decide that only profit element on this component should be brought to tax and it is decided that the profit of the appellant should be taken

Asst CIT 11(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Rishabhdev Technocable Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 7773/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Rishavdev Technocable Ltd. Unit No. 53, 1St Floor, Jagat Satguru Tax – 11(1), Mumbai, Room No. 217, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai Vs. Industries, Vishveshwar Nagar Road, 400020. Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400063 Pan: Aaacr2962D .. Appellant Respondent Revenue By .. Shishir Dhamija, Dr Assessee By .. None .. Date Of Hearing 03-11-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 03-11-2016

Section 144

Gujarat High Court in the case of. ClT Vs. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., it is clearly held that only the profit element embedded in purchases would be subject to tax and not the entire amount. Now the question arises how to determine the profit element. For this purpose, the total ... view that the assessee’s gross profit varies from 5% to 8.77%, but these purchases are from Grey Market and its profit element is little higher and accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to make further addition of 3 % of the bogus purchases and accordingly estimate the income. We direct

Ghanshyam W. Dialani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal may be treated as partly allowed

ITA 3219/MUM/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 24Section 251(1)Section 80H

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Topman Exports vs CIT 247 CTR 353 (SC). According to this judgment, only profit element is to be excluded while computing deduction u/s 80HHC on the amount of sale of DEPB. It was further argued that