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 Sets 2% Profit Rate on Bogus Purchases, Overturns 12.5% CIT(A) Rate, Citing Legal Precedents</h1> The Tribunal concluded that a 2% profit rate on the assessee's bogus purchases was appropriate, rather than the 12.5% rate applied by the CIT(A). This ... Estimation of income - bogus purchases - CIT(A) partly confirmed the addition on account of bogus purchases @ 12.5% - HELD THAT:- We note that in this case the net profit of the assessee returned during the year was 1.44% whereas the GP was 6.25%. We are not in agreement with the conclusion of Ld. CIT(A) on the application of GP rate of 12.5% as the assessee has already returned a GP of 6.25% since the applicable VAT is 4% and if a reasonable margin 2% is added to the VAT rate and GP rate declared is reduced, then it comes to less than 2%. Thus, it would be reasonable if a rate of 2% is applied on the bogus purchases. Accordingly we modify the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to apply a rate of 2% of the bogus purchases. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered by the Tribunal in these appeals was the determination of the appropriate profit rate to be applied to alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. Specifically, the Tribunal examined whether the rate of 12.5% applied by the CIT(A) was justified, or if a lower rate was more appropriate given the specific circumstances of the assessee's business operations.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework involved the application of the Income Tax Act, particularly sections 143(1) and 147, which deal with the processing of returns and the reopening of assessments, respectively. The Tribunal also referred to the precedent set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth, which established that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal considered the nature of the assessee's business as a wholesale dealer and supplier of paper, which typically operates on low profit margins. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision to apply a 12.5% profit rate on the bogus purchases. However, the Tribunal found this rate excessive given the assessee's reported gross profit (GP) and net profit (NP) margins.Key Evidence and FindingsThe evidence presented included the assessee's financial statements, which showed a GP of 6.25% and an NP of 1.44% for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal also considered the information from the Sales Tax Department, which identified the suppliers as hawala operators, thereby questioning the genuineness of the purchases.Application of Law to FactsApplying the legal principles from the Simit P. Sheth case, the Tribunal concluded that it was unreasonable to apply a 12.5% profit rate on the bogus purchases. Instead, the Tribunal determined that a 2% rate was more appropriate, taking into account the VAT rate of 4% and a reasonable margin of 2%, which aligned more closely with the assessee's actual profit margins.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both the assessee and the Revenue. The assessee argued for a reduction in the profit rate, citing its low profit margins. Conversely, the Revenue contended that the entire amount of bogus purchases should be added to the income due to lack of evidence substantiating the genuineness of transactions. The Tribunal found the assessee's argument more persuasive given the specific financial context.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that a 2% profit rate on the bogus purchases was justified and directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to apply this rate, thereby partially allowing the assessee's appeals.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles EstablishedThe Tribunal reinforced the principle that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be taxed, not the entire purchase amount. This principle aligns with the precedent set in CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal determined that the appropriate profit rate to be applied to the bogus purchases was 2%, rather than the 12.5% applied by the CIT(A). This decision was based on the assessee's actual profit margins and the need to ensure a realistic assessment of taxable income.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to apply a 2% profit rate on the bogus purchases reflects a careful consideration of the assessee's business context and the legal precedents guiding the taxation of such transactions. All appeals by the assessee were partly allowed, with the Tribunal modifying the CIT(A)'s order accordingly.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found