← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Shree Krishna Udyog, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 841/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 841/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Krishna Udyog, 17A, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Bhanpuri Industrial Area, Aaykar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010 Raipur Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Aapfs5659E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri G. S. Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 16/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 147aSection 148ASection 148A(1)(a)Section 148A(1)(d)Section 151Section 250

himself on the basis of information received to initiate proceedings u/s 147as to whether it is the case of bogus sale or case of bogus purchase. The entire proceedings of assessment is invalid, the Order kindly be annulled. 6. That under the facts and the law, the Ld. AO further ... Appeals) further erred in confirming the Order of the Ld. AO though all the purchases from M/s Abhishek Enterprises are not bogus purchases and are genuine purchases, by taking actual deliveries and making payment by cheque, no VAT disputed and having other supporting which the Ld. AO did not consider

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs. Shiv Shakti Constructions, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 578/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shiv Shakti Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Tax Chowk, Greater Noida, Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Uttar Pradesh Sector-33 Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R & Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- Vs Shiv Shakti Constructions Tax A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Central Circle-Ii, Chowk, Greater Noida, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Sector-33 Uttar Pradesh Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

order. Accordingly, the AO consider the replies filed by the Assessee and for the following reasons, rejected the books of accounts and disallowed the bogus purchases to the extent of Rs. 22,37,74,998/- by observing as under: “ (i) The assessee has expressed his inability and failed to furnish ... onus of proving the genuineness of these purchases against which such abnormally large amount of sundry creditors have accumulated over the years. Hence, the bogus purchases corresponding to the increase in sundry creditors during the FY 2020-21, amounting to a total of Rs.22.37.74.998/- is hereby disallowed

Shiv Shakti Constructions, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-II, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 34/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalasstt. Year: 2021-22 Shiv Shakti Constructions Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Tax Chowk, Greater Noida, Central Circle-Ii, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Uttar Pradesh Sector-33 Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R & Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Incom- Vs Shiv Shakti Constructions Tax A-142, Omaxe, Nri City, Pari Central Circle-Ii, Chowk, Greater Noida, 2Nd Floor, Arto Complex, Gautam Budh Nagar-201306, Sector-33 Uttar Pradesh Noida-201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aazfs6406R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rajinder Kaur, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

order. Accordingly, the AO consider the replies filed by the Assessee and for the following reasons, rejected the books of accounts and disallowed the bogus purchases to the extent of Rs. 22,37,74,998/- by observing as under: “ (i) The assessee has expressed his inability and failed to furnish ... onus of proving the genuineness of these purchases against which such abnormally large amount of sundry creditors have accumulated over the years. Hence, the bogus purchases corresponding to the increase in sundry creditors during the FY 2020-21, amounting to a total of Rs.22.37.74.998/- is hereby disallowed