https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461083 The ITAT Cuttack held that applying a 22% profit rate on undisclosed sales was excessive without supporting evidence. Following precedent from CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar, the tribunal determined that total sales cannot represent income from undisclosed sales, as the assessee incurred costs for goods acquisition. The Revenue's comparison with another entity showing 22% gross profit was deemed inappropriate. Given the assessee's previous year net profit of 16%, the tribunal found no justification for the 6% increase and reduced the profit estimation to 16% on undisclosed sales of Rs. 1,58,75,339. Both Revenue and assessee appeals were partly allowed. en-us Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Mar 2025 09:06:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461083 The ITAT Cuttack held that applying a 22% profit rate on undisclosed sales was excessive without supporting evidence. Following precedent from CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar, the tribunal determined that total sales cannot represent income from undisclosed sales, as the assessee incurred costs for goods acquisition. The Revenue's comparison with another entity showing 22% gross profit was deemed inappropriate. Given the assessee's previous year net profit of 16%, the tribunal found no justification for the 6% increase and reduced the profit estimation to 16% on undisclosed sales of Rs. 1,58,75,339. Both Revenue and assessee appeals were partly allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 29 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461083