Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the entire amount of purchases treated as bogus could be added to income, or only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be taxed.
Analysis: The assessee's sales and contract receipts were not disputed, and the record did not establish that the purchases were wholly non-existent. The suppliers were found to be suspicious or non-genuine, but the assessee had produced material showing payment by account payee cheques and consumption of materials in execution of the contract. In such circumstances, the purchases could not be rejected in full merely because the parties were accommodation providers or because the assessee could not establish the suppliers' existence conclusively. Where sales are accepted, corresponding purchases cannot be ignored altogether, and only the profit embedded in such purchases is liable to be brought to tax. Following the factual appreciation made by the first appellate authority, the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the impugned purchases.
Conclusion: The full disallowance was not justified; only the estimated profit element in the purchases was taxable, and the restriction of the addition to 12.5% was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: When sales are accepted and purchases are not proved to be wholly bogus, the proper course is to tax only the profit element embedded in such purchases, not to add the entire purchase amount as income.