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
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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>Tax appeal dismissed due to falling below CBDT limit. Ground against assessment re-opening not pressed. Profit estimation upheld.</h1> <h3>ITO 5 (1) (3) Versus Dhaval Exim P. Ltd., Mumbai, Vice Versa</h3> The department's appeal was dismissed due to the tax effect falling below the limit set by CBDT. The AR did not press the ground against the validity of ... Estimation pf income - Addition u/s. 69C - Bogus purchases - CIT(A) sustaining the addition to 3% of the alleged bogus purchases - assessee has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases made from the declared sources are genuine and only submission made by the learned AR before us is, the estimated profit on account of alleged bogus purchases should be reduced to the gross profit rate declared by the assessee in subsequent assessment years - HELD THAT:-The aforesaid submission of the learned AR is not acceptable. It is a fact on record that the assessee has failed to prove the purchases from the declared sources, which in other words demonstrates that the assessee has purchased the goods/diamonds from unknown sources/grey market, thereby, avoiding payments of VAT and other taxes, as may be applicable to such transactions. Thus, to that extent the assessee has suppressed his actual profits. The gross profit rate declared by the assessee under normal circumstances cannot be applied to unproved purchases. After considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that learned CIT(A) is more than reasonable in estimating the profit on the bogus purchases @3%. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid decision of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the grounds raised are dismissed. Issues:1. Tax effect below monetary limit as per Circular No.3/20182. Validity of re-opening of assessment u/s. 1473. Sustaining addition u/s. 69C of the Act to 3% of alleged bogus purchasesAnalysis:1. The first issue pertains to the tax effect below the monetary limit as per Circular No.3/2018. The department's appeal was dismissed as the tax effect on the disputed amount was below the limit set by CBDT. The department was given the liberty to seek restoration if falling under exceptions in the circular.2. The second issue involves the validity of re-opening of assessment u/s. 147. The assessee raised a ground against the re-opening, but the AR expressed not to press this ground, resulting in its dismissal.3. The third issue concerns the addition u/s. 69C of the Act to 3% of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee, engaged in diamond trading, failed to prove purchases from certain parties, leading to an addition by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) sustained the addition at 3% of alleged bogus purchases after considering submissions and material on record.4. The Assessing Officer had specific information indicating accommodation entries for purchases from unknown sources. The AR argued for profit estimation based on previous years' gross profit, but the Tribunal found the AR's submission unacceptable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate profit at 3% due to the failure to prove purchases from declared sources, indicating suppression of actual profits.5. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was reasonable in estimating profit at 3% on alleged bogus purchases, considering the circumstances. Therefore, the grounds raised were dismissed, and the appeals were ultimately dismissed.6. In summary, both appeals were dismissed based on the specific issues discussed and analyzed in the judgment delivered on November 30, 2018, by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found