Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>High Court affirms Tribunal's decision on net profit ratio & Section 40(A)(3)</h1> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case involving the application of net profit ratio and Section 40(A)(3) on unaccounted ... N.P. estimation - Tribunal applied net profit ratio of 5.2% - Held that:- We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned tribunal as well as learned CIT(A). When the evidences of total expenditure or purchase were not available with the revenue and consequently the assessee as well as A.O. both decided to determine the income by applying a reasonable estimate of profit and that estimation was found very near to the income offered by the assessee, the learned tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeals preferred by the revenue. - Decided against revenue. Undisclosed closing stock added by the Assessing Officer - CIT(A) deleted addition - Held that:- We are of the view that learned CIT(A) has correctly appreciated the facts of the case and held that in the absence of any stock found at the time of search there was no justification to tax unaccounted stock in the hands of the assessee. We have also noted that the AO was not definite about the said stock; hence, no authentic finding was given but it was held by him that there might be stock in godown. We, therefore, hold that in such a situation learned CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition which according to him was based upon conjecture only.- Decided against revenue. Application of provisions of Section 40(A)(3) of the Act becomes infructuous, as once the question No.1 is held against the revenue and the judgement and order passed by the learned tribunal applying net profit ratio of 5.2% for respective Assessment Years has been confirmed, there is no question of further making any addition under section 40(A)3 Issues Involved:1. Application of net profit ratio by the Appellate Tribunal.2. Applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on unaccounted purchases/expenses.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Application of Net Profit Ratio by the Appellate Tribunal:In the case concerning the assessee, the primary issue was the estimation of profit on unaccounted transactions recorded in seized Kachcha Note Books during a search on the Dosani Group. The assessee firm, engaged in coal trading, had recorded both accounted and unaccounted transactions in these notebooks. The assessee declared additional income in compliance with a notice under section 153A, estimating profit at 5% on unaccounted cash sales. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) disagreed, computing profit based on total unaccounted sales and purchases, resulting in a higher profit figure.The CIT(A) compared the profit ratios and modified the additions made by the A.O., estimating the income for various assessment years. The CIT(A) found the income declared by the assessee in proximity with the income disclosed during the search, thus modifying the additions and deleting disallowances made under section 40(A)(3).The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s modifications, noting that the assessee's estimation of gross profit at 5% was reasonable and close to the income offered. The Tribunal found no evidence of total expenditure or purchases available with the revenue, leading both the assessee and the A.O. to determine income by applying a reasonable profit estimate. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeals, agreeing with the CIT(A)'s approach and confirming the modified additions for the respective years.For A.Y. 2007-2008, the Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition for undisclosed closing stock, finding no stock during the search to justify the A.O.'s assumption. The Tribunal affirmed a profit of Rs. 36,083 as computed by the CIT(A), rejecting the revenue's and assessee's cross objections.The High Court concurred with the Tribunal and CIT(A), finding no error in their approach. The Court noted that when evidence of total expenditure or purchases was unavailable, the estimation of profit was reasonable and close to the income offered by the assessee. Thus, the Court dismissed the revenue's appeals concerning the application of the net profit ratio.2. Applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on Unaccounted Purchases/Expenses:The second issue involved the applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on unaccounted purchases/expenses recorded in the seized Kachcha Note Books. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal both concluded that disallowances under Section 40(A)(3) were rendered infructuous due to the estimation of income based on unaccounted transactions.The Tribunal referred to case laws, including Anand Swaroop & Co. Khandelwal and Hynoup Food and Oil Pvt. Ltd., to support its decision. It held that when income is based on estimation, the provisions of Section 40(A)(3) do not apply, as there was no concrete evidence of total expenditure or purchases. The Tribunal found that both the assessee and the A.O. decided to determine income by applying a reasonable estimate of profit, which was close to the income offered by the assessee.The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, noting that once the net profit ratio was confirmed, there was no question of further additions under Section 40(A)(3). Consequently, the Court found the applicability of Section 40(A)(3) to be infructuous and dismissed the revenue's appeals on this ground as well.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's and CIT(A)'s decisions. The Court confirmed the application of the net profit ratio and found the applicability of Section 40(A)(3) on unaccounted purchases/expenses to be infructuous, thereby ruling in favor of the assessee.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found