Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)
The Dcit, Central Circle-3,, Baroda vs M/S. Ultra Tech Transmission Pvt. Ltd, ... on 16 October, 2023 cites

Engineering Analysis Centre Of ... vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 2 March, 2021

The case of Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 494 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court held that where assessee did purchase cloth and sell finished goods, but purchasers were not traceable, profit element embedded in purchases would be subjected to tax and not entire amount. In the case of Shoreline Hotel (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2018] 98 taxmann.com 234 (Bombay), the High Court held that where on basis of information received from Sales Tax authorities, Assessing Officer found that assessee was beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and assessee could not produce any material purchased by it nor it could ensure presence of supplier, Assessing Officer was unjustified in limiting addition under section 69C on basis of GP ratio.
Supreme Court of India Cites 167 - Cited by 1029 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Vijay Trading Co. vs Income-Tax Officer on 26 December, 1984

In the case of Vijay Trading Co. v. ITO 2016] 76 taxmann.com 366 (Gujarat), the High Court held that In respect of bogus purchases, only profit element embedded therein would be subjected to tax. In the case of SPL Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. SPL Infrastructure (P.) Ltd.[2020] 118 taxmann.com 498 (Madras), the assessee was a contractor, who carried out the work of road laying in the Thermal Power Plant. The AO made an addition in the hands of assessee on the ground that 14 of the sub-contractors to whom the sub contracts were assigned by assessee/ contractor were not produced before AO upon summons being issued to them and thereupon, disbelieving their existence and the sub contract work carried out by them, the entire payments made to them were disallowed by AO and they were added back to the income of assessee. Tribunal, restricted disallowance to 10% of expenditure incurred towards subcontractors. It was held that a bare perusal of the compared results of the Gross Profit and Net Profit by assessee clearly showed that the Gross Profit at the rate of 14.21% and Net Profit at the rate of 3.83% declared by Assessee, with the addition of 10% agreed by assessee before CIT (Appeals), resulted in a much better result of profits declared by assessee in the present Assessment Year viz., A.Y.2010-11 as compared to the previous years. Therefore, the estimation of profit by Appellate Authorities even on the premise taken by AO that some of the sub contractors could not be produced before AO, did not result in any perversity in the findings of CIT (Appeals) as well as Tribunal. Considering nature of work carried on by assessee, there was no question of not incurring of expenditure by assessee to carry on road work contracts and the work was mentioned in the Measurement book maintained by assessee and counter signed by the sub contractors. However, there was chances of inflating the expenditure for which disallowance of 10% of expenditure claimed was justified and disallowance of entire amount could not be appreciated.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 25 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1