Case Laws Analysis
Followed on ITO v. Brijesh Raithatha 2022 TaxPub(DT) 2452 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Kamlesh T. Basnsali v. ITO 2022 TaxPub(DT) 0201 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Asstt. CIT v. Pushpa Madan Sharma 2021 TaxPub(DT) 5574 (Mum-Trib)
Supported in DCIT v. Mitesh Ilesh Gadhia 2021 TaxPub(DT) 2632 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Maurya Tiles 2021 TaxPub(DT) 2579 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on ITO v. Krishna Solvechem Ltd. 2021 TaxPub(DT) 2556 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Choudhary Dredging Construction & Engineering (P) Ltd. 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1400 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ACIT v. Madhyam Construction Company (P) Ltd. 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1306 (Del-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Sandeep Namdeo Chavan 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1294 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. United Plastics 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1134 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Madhukar Yashwant Kutrekar 2021 TaxPub(DT) 1008 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Rajesh Haridas Menon 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0938 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Dinesh S. Dhokar v. ITO 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0792 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Metallica Tubes & Pipes (P) Ltd. v. ITO 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0633 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Nayan Shukla v. ITO 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0555 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ESP (Asia) (P) Ltd. v. ACIT 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0549 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Ramesh B. Musale 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0481 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Anand Prakash Diwan 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0294 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Sadhana Jaisingh Patel 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0160 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Becon Constructions (P) Ltd. v. ACIT 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0013 (Del-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Aquamech Engineering Corporation 2021 TaxPub(DT) 0008 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Raj Tools Centre PAP 2020 TaxPub(DT) 4967 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Aeroflex Fittings (P) Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 4747 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Anil K. Shah (HUF) v. ITO 2020 TaxPub(DT) 4499 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ACIT v. Pradhyumn Prataprai Thakkar 2020 TaxPub(DT) 4340 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Asstt. CIT v. Millenium Enterprises 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3285 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Electro Coats 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3239 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on DCIT v. Della Technica Interior Design (P) Ltd. 2020 TaxPub(DT) 3238 (Mum-Trib)
Supported by on D. Manish & Co. v. ACIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2885 (Mum-Trib)
Supported in D. Manish & Co. v. ACIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 2885 (Mum-Trib)
Supported by on Sterling Jewels (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT 2020 TaxPub(DT) 0185 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Aggarwal Associates Ltd. v. DCIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4843 (Del-Trib)
Relied ACIT v. Chhaya Gems 2019 TaxPub(DT) 2676 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on TV Teleshop (P) Ltd. v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 1660 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Spectrum Scan (P) Ltd. v. ACIT 2019 TaxPub(DT) 0652 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Pramod S. Mehta v. ITO 2019 TaxPub(DT) 0222 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on on Jitendra Shivjibhai Patel v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7310 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Jitendra Shivjibhai Patel v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 7310 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on ACIT v. Haware Construction (P) Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 6931 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Big Imports & Gifts v. Asstt. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 5988 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Chemical Process Piping (P.) Ltd. v. R.M. Madhavi, Addl. CIT 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3328 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on Asstt. CIT v. Thakor Electronics Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2858 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Dy. CIT v. Steamline Industries Ltd. 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2561 (Mum-Trib)
Referred on Glow Metal v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2295 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Chirag Rajendra Shah v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 2029 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on ITO v. Sumit Jaiswal 2018 TaxPub(DT) 1279 (Kol-Trib)
Relied on Navin Shantilal Mehta v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0709 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Hitesh Tilokchand Bohra v. ITO 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0489 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Sea Linkers (P) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT & Vice-Versa 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0408 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on Dy. CIT v. Shekhar M. Kharote 2018 TaxPub(DT) 0236 (Mum-Trib)
Followed on New Consolidated Construction Company Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5603 (Mum-Trib)
Relied on DCIT v. Miki Industries & Companies (P) Ltd. 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5594 (Mum-Trib)
Referred on Amy Diam Vega Jewellery (P) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4850 (Mum-Trib)
Relied Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Assistant CIT 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0829 (Ahd-Trib)
The Tax Publishers2013 TaxPub(DT) 2115 (Guj-HC) : (2013) 356 ITR 0451

Income Tax Act, 1961

--Income from undisclosed sources--Addition under section 69Alleged bogus purchases--Assessee was engaged in the business of trading in steel on wholesale basis. During the course of reassessment proceedings, assessing officer noted that some of the suppliers of steel had made their statements on oath to the effect that they had not supplied the steel to the assessee but had only provided sale bills, receiving a small commission. Assessing officer treated such purchases from suppliers of steel to be bogus and added the entire amount to the gross profit of the assessee. Commissioner (Appeals) held that assessee had made purchases from other parties in the open market, therefore, he retained 30 per cent of the purchase cost as the probable profit of the assessee. According to Tribunal, twelve and half per cent of disputed purchases should be retained in the hands of assessee as business profits. Held: Commissioner (Appeals) believed that when as a trader in steel, the assessee sold certain quantity of steel, he would have purchased the same quantity from some source, therefore, the purchases were not bogus but were made 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. If the yardstick of 30 per cent., as adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was accepted, the gross profit rate would be much higher. In essence, the Tribunal only estimated the possible profit out of purchases made through non-genuine parties. No question of law in such estimation would arise. The estimation of rate of profit return must necessarily vary with the nature of business and no uniform yardstick could be adopted.

Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 69

In the Gujarat High Court

Akil Kureshi & Sonia Gokani J.J.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth

Tax Appeal No. 553 of 2012

A.Y. 2006-07

16 January, 2013

Appellant by :K. M. Parikh, Advocate


Akil Kureshi J.

The judgment of the court was delivered by The Revenue is in appeal against the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal' for short) dated 24-2-2012, raising the following substantial question of law for our consideration :


'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : /