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>ITAT directs AO to tax only profit on bogus purchases, stresses need for evidence</h1> <h3>Ashutosh Heman Joshi Versus ITO, 19 (2) (1), Mumbai</h3> The ITAT partially allowed the appeal, directing the AO to tax only the profit element on alleged bogus purchases and to verify the reconciliation filed ... Bogus purchases made from three parties - notices issued u/s 133(6) were returned by the postal authorities with the remark, “not known” - profit estimation - Held that:- Though assessee has proved the initial onus cast upon him, but failed to substantiate the purchase with further evidence in the form of producing the parties in person as required by the AO. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that instead of taxing the total alleged bogus purchases, the profit element embedded in such purchases only needs to be taxed. In this case, assessee has declared a gross profit of 2% to 6% in the preceding financial years. We further observe that the assessee might have saved the tax portion embedded in such purchases. If we take into account the average gross profit declared by the assessee and the probable savings on account of tax portion on bogus purchases, the assessee might have saved a profit of 6-7% on those alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also to meet the ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to direct the AO to estimate profit of 7% on alleged bogus purchases from those parties. Addition towards difference in credit balances in 3 parties’ accounts - Held that:- We observe that it is quite possible in business transactions that there may be variance in bill of customers and final payment made against such bills because of various reasons. As requested by the assessee, the AO ought to have provided an opportunity to the assessee to reconcile the difference before making additions. We further notice that the assessee has filed a paper book with necessary evidences explaining the difference noticed by the AO in those parties’ accounts. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the issue needs to be verified by the AO in the light of the details filed by the assessee. Hence, we set aside the issue to the file of the AO and direct him to verify the reconciliation filed by the assessee before making any addition towards difference in sundry creditors’ accounts. Appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed for statistical purpose. Issues:1. Addition towards alleged bogus purchases made from three parties.2. Addition towards difference in credit balances in 3 parties' accounts.Analysis:Issue 1: Addition towards alleged bogus purchases made from three partiesThe appellant, engaged in a trading business, faced scrutiny due to huge sundry debtors and creditors. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed purchases from certain parties, deeming them as bogus, leading to additions in the appellant's income. The AO's decision was based on returned notices u/s 133(6) and lack of further evidence. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision. However, the ITAT found the AO's approach flawed as no irregularities in the appellant's books were proven. The ITAT directed the AO to tax only the profit element on alleged bogus purchases, estimating a 7% profit on such transactions due to tax savings. The ITAT emphasized the need for further evidence but acknowledged the initial onus discharged by the appellant.Issue 2: Addition towards difference in credit balances in 3 parties' accountsThe AO noted discrepancies in credit balances of certain parties, leading to additions in the appellant's income. The appellant argued that the differences could be due to various legitimate reasons like price variations and discounts. The ITAT found the AO's decision hasty, as reconciliation was requested by the appellant and necessary evidence was provided. The ITAT directed the AO to verify the reconciliation filed by the appellant before making any additions towards the differences in sundry creditors' accounts. This issue was set aside for further verification.In conclusion, the ITAT partly allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of thorough verification and evidence in assessing alleged bogus purchases and differences in credit balances. The judgment aimed to ensure fairness and accuracy in determining the appellant's taxable income.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found