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>Tribunal upholds deletion of inflated purchases, finding them genuine and essential for contract work.</h1> The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 74,01,988/- for inflated and bogus purchases. ... Addition on account of inflated and bogus purchases - adoption of N.P. rate - CIT(A) deleted the addition - Held that:- It is absolutely clear that, firstly, without purchase of material the execution of work contract given by the MCGM is not possible and even if the supplier is not traceable and not coming forward to confirm the sales, then also the factum of purchase cannot be denied; and secondly, the net profit rate on the entire contract work and of the sub-contractor is not more than 8% and 5% respectively. Here in this case also, even if the particular supplier has not confirmed the purchases, this does not lead to any inference that assessee has not made any purchases and the net profit rate of 5.87% is not only unreasonable but is still on a higher side as per finding given by Settlement Commission. Accordingly, the finding of the fact as recorded by the CIT(A) in the impugned order is affirmed and we hold that the addition of ₹ 74,01,988/- made by the AO has rightly been deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition on account of inflated and bogus purchases.2. Verification of the genuineness of purchases from M/s P K Trading Co.Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Addition on Account of Inflated and Bogus Purchases:The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the addition of Rs. 74,01,988/- claimed by the assessee as purchases from M/s P K Trading Co. The Assessing Officer (AO) had treated these purchases as bogus based on information from the sales tax authorities and the inability to trace the supplier. The AO contended that the delivery challans lacked truck or lorry numbers and the assessee failed to produce the supplier for verification.The CIT(A) reviewed the entire material and noted that the assessee, a sub-contractor for MCGM, had to purchase materials like cement and steel to complete the civil work. The payments were made through account payee cheques and the work was inspected by MCGM officials before payment release. The CIT(A) concluded that the purchases were genuine as the materials were essential for the contract work and payments were made after thorough verification by MCGM.Before the Tribunal, the revenue argued that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases, as the supplier was untraceable and the bank could not verify all payment details. The assessee countered by stating that the materials were necessary for the contract work, which was inspected and approved by MCGM, and the net profit rate was consistent with industry standards.The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), noting that the contract work required specific materials and the payments were made after MCGM's verification. The Tribunal also considered the Settlement Commission's findings in a similar case, which accepted an 8% net profit rate for main contractors and 5% for sub-contractors. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 74,01,988/- was rightly deleted as the purchases were necessary and the net profit rate was reasonable.2. Verification of the Genuineness of Purchases from M/s P K Trading Co.:The AO's remand report indicated that M/s P K Trading Co. was not traceable, and the bank could not provide satisfactory details about the cheque payments. The CIT(A) noted that the assessee provided comprehensive details of the purchases and the nature of the contract work. The payments were made through account payee cheques and the work was inspected by MCGM officials.The Tribunal observed that the assessee had to purchase specific materials to complete the contract work, which was verified by MCGM. The Tribunal noted that even if the supplier was not traceable, the fact that the materials were purchased and used for the contract work could not be denied. The Tribunal also considered the Settlement Commission's findings, which supported the assessee's claim that the purchases were genuine and necessary for the contract work.The Tribunal concluded that the purchases from M/s P K Trading Co. were genuine and necessary for the contract work. The addition made by the AO was rightly deleted by the CIT(A), as the materials were essential for completing the contract and the payments were made after thorough verification by MCGM.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s order that deleted the addition of Rs. 74,01,988/- on account of inflated and bogus purchases. The Tribunal concluded that the purchases were genuine, necessary for the contract work, and the net profit rate was reasonable. The Tribunal's decision was based on the comprehensive verification process by MCGM and the findings of the Settlement Commission in a similar case.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found