← 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

ITO-27(1)(5), Income Tax Office Vashi vs. J.V.Chem India, B Neelkanth Chhaya, R.B. Mehta

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhito-27(1)(5) Vs. J.V. Chem India, Room No.410, 4Th Floor, B Neelkanth Chhahya, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway R.B. Mehta Road Station, Mumbai – 400703 Ghatkopar East Maharashtra – 400077 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aabfj4268L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : S. Arunkumar Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Electronic Mode Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) For A.Y. 2010-11. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Lied To Appreciate The Fact That The Re-Opening Of Assessment Was Done By The Ao After Taking Prior Approval & Also Recording The Reasons That Entire Purchase Of Rs. 21,15,881/- Representing Accommodation Entries (As Per Information & Investigation Report Received From Dgit (Inv.) Mumbai, Based On Information Provided By Sales Tax Department), Should Have Been Disallowed. 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Quashing The Assessment Proceeding Witl.At Appreciating That In The Case Of Bogus Purchase Transactions, Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court Upheld The Disallowance Of 100% In The Case Of N.K. Proteins Which Was Subsequently Confirmed By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court.

For Appellant: S. ArunkumarFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment proceeding witl.at appreciating that in the case of bogus purchase transactions, Hon'ble Gujarat High Court upheld the disallowance of 100% in the case of N.K. Proteins which was subsequently confirmed ... Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of original assessment proceedings the assessing officer has determined the bogus purchases at Rs.14,69,766/- after confronting the information of obtaining accommodation entries from the aforesaid parties by the assessee. In the order

Income Tax Officer-42(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Ravindra G Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2565/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhincome Tax Officer - Vs. Ravindra G. Chitalia, 42(1)(4), A/604, Saileela, Above Room No. 718, Kautilya Vijaya Bank, Anand Bhavan, Bkc, Nagar, Dahisar (East) Mumbai – 400051 Maharashtra – 400068 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaepc4939Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : S. Arunkumar Respondent By : Debiz Bhusal Date Of Hearing 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This E-Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) For A.Y. 2010-191. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Giving Partial Relief To The Assessee By Reducing The Addition / Disallowance To 5% Of The Impugned Non-Genuine / Bogus Purchases As Against The Addition / Disallowance @12.5% Made By The Assessing Officer By Relying On. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & In Law By Reducing The Disallowance @ 5% Of The Impugned Bogus Purchases By Relying On The Judgment Dated 06 02 2019 Of The Jurisdictional Itat In The Case Of The This Assessee For The A.Y 2009- 10 Which Was Not Accepted By The Revenue & Further Appeal Was Filed It Is Submitted In This Regard That In The Said Itat Judgment On Identical Facts It Was Held By Hon'Ble Tribunal That Disallowance @12.5% Was At Higher Rale Going By The Nature Of Business Of The Assessee (Trading In Various Products Of Iron & Steel) & Also For The Reason That The Assessee Has Also Paid Vat Element On The Impugned Bogus Purchases Without

For Appellant: S. ArunkumarFor Respondent: Debiz Bhusal
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

facts and in law by giving partial relief to the assessee by reducing the addition / disallowance to 5% of the impugned non-genuine / bogus purchases as against the addition / disallowance @12.5% made by the Assessing Officer by relying on. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by reducing the disallowance @ 5% of the impugned bogus purchases by relying on the judgment dated 06 02 2019 of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of the this assessee for the A.Y 2009- 10 which was not accepted