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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2017 (11) TMI 1053 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Tribunal upholds assessment reopening, deems only profit margin taxable in alleged bogus purchases The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment reopening under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The deletion of the addition made under section ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal upholds assessment reopening, deems only profit margin taxable in alleged bogus purchases

                            The Tribunal upheld the validity of the assessment reopening under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act. The deletion of the addition made under section 69C was supported, emphasizing that purchases should not be disallowed solely due to untraceable suppliers if transactions were genuine. Regarding alleged bogus purchases, only the profit margin was deemed taxable, with a 15% disallowance rate considered fair. The Tribunal affirmed the Ld. Commissioner's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal to prevent revenue leakage. The order was upheld, and the decision was announced on 11/09/2017.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Validity of reopening the assessment under sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
                            2. Disallowance of purchases under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
                            3. Estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment under Sections 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
                            The assessee challenged the reopening of the assessment under sections 147/148 of the Act. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) upheld the validity of the reopening of the assessment. This decision was not contested further in the detailed analysis, indicating that the reopening was considered valid.

                            2. Disallowance of Purchases under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
                            The Revenue challenged the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,34,75,252/- made under section 69C of the Act. The Ld. First Appellate Authority had deleted the addition by holding that the purchases from nine parties were genuine, relying on the decision from the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Ltd. (2013) 216 taxman 171 (Bom.). The Tribunal considered various decisions from Hon'ble High Courts and the Hon'ble Apex Court, including Sanjay Oilcakes Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.), CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.), CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), and CIT vs. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom.). These decisions established that purchases should not be disallowed merely because the suppliers were not traceable, as long as the purchases were genuine and payments were made through banking channels.

                            3. Estimation of Profit on Alleged Bogus Purchases:
                            In cases where purchases are considered bogus, the Tribunal and various High Courts have held that only the profit margin embedded in such purchases should be subjected to tax, not the entire purchase amount. The Tribunal referred to several decisions, including CIT vs. Simit P. Seth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj.) and CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 498 (Guj.), which supported the approach of estimating the profit margin. The Tribunal noted that in the present case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had adopted a disallowance rate of 15% of the alleged bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 1,12,01,515/-, which was considered fair and reasonable. The Tribunal affirmed this decision, noting that the Gross Profit (G.P.) ratios for the relevant financial years supported the 15% disallowance rate.

                            Conclusion:
                            The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) had justifiably adopted the disallowance rate of 15% of the alleged bogus purchases, which would plug revenue leakage. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) was affirmed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 11/09/2017.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found