← 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 Ward-15(2), New Delhi vs. La Solitaire Jwels Private Limited, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4784/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ito Vs. La Solitaire Jewels Private Ward- 15 (2) Limited, 2706, Bank Street New Delhi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan No.Aaacl9483H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.102/Del/2023 (In Ita No.4784/Del/2019) Assessment Year: 2013-14 La Solitaire Jewels Private Vs. Ito Limited, 2706, Bank Street Ward- 15 (2) Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110005 Pan No.Aaacl9483H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Respondent By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Ca Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/02/2024 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am:

Section 133Section 143Section 148Section 44A

brevity. 3. The solitary grievance of the revenue is that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.23265825/- made on account of bogus purchases. 4. Representatives of both the sides were heard at length. Case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidences duly considered in the light ... Bhanwarlal Jain, Rajendra Jain, Dharmichand Jain, Sanjay Choudhary group revealed that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entry in the form of bogus purchase of diamond through these entry providers details of such entries are as under :- S. Name of Entry Entry provider Entry Amount Accommodation entry No provider

Megahertz Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 5 (2) (2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2814/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmegahertz Systems Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited, 251/253, Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(2) Tardeo Court, Opp. Swati Aayakar Bhavan, Snacks Tardeo Road Wrqh+C23, Maharshi Near Bhatia Hospital, Karve Road, New Marine Grant Road West, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aadcm8203F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Indira Adakil Date Of Hearing 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

sustaining the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under section 69C of the Act amounting to Rs.2,55,904/- being 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that expenditure being alleged bogus purchase was duly accounted in the books, the source was explained, the provision of section ... that the reassessment proceeding was completed on the incorrect premises that the Appellant had not provided any substantial evidence in respect of the alleged bogus purchase transaction whereas, the Appellant had brought out enough evidence on record to substantiate the transaction yet the Assessing Officer proceeded with the reassessment proceedings

Vinipul Inorganics Pvt. Ltd., Chembur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14 (3) (2) Mumbai, Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2402/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं.2402 /मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2011-12) Vinipul Inorganics Pvt.Ltd. 1/3, Kandhari Colony, 2Nd Road, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071. Pan: Aacca-9261-A ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(3)(2), Room No.458, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Shri Dharamveer D. Yadav, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/01/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02/06/2023, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Solitary Issue In Appeal Is Addition Of Rs.15,65,241/- U/S. 69C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’], On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. Shri Rahul Hakani Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted That This The Second Round Of Litigation. In The First Round, The Tribunal In Assessee’S

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamveer D. Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 69C

issue in appeal is addition of Rs.15,65,241/- u/s. 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’], on account of bogus purchases. 3. Shri Rahul Hakani appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that this the second round of litigation. In the first round, the Tribunal ... allowing the assessee opportunity of cross examination of the parties. The Assessing Officer in second round again made addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) upheld the assessment order. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in assessee's own case for Assessment

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1546/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

recorded for A.Y 2009-10 as against the GP margin declared by the assessee @8.21%. He further observed that since the bogus purchases were good part of the whole purchases, therefore, he applied the GP rate @10.74% on the entire turnover and as a result restricted the additions to Rs.3142800

I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata vs. Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata

ITA 1545/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

recorded for A.Y 2009-10 as against the GP margin declared by the assessee @8.21%. He further observed that since the bogus purchases were good part of the whole purchases, therefore, he applied the GP rate @10.74% on the entire turnover and as a result restricted the additions to Rs.3142800

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1169/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

recorded for A.Y 2009-10 as against the GP margin declared by the assessee @8.21%. He further observed that since the bogus purchases were good part of the whole purchases, therefore, he applied the GP rate @10.74% on the entire turnover and as a result restricted the additions to Rs.3142800

Champalal Omprakash, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-43(2), Kolkata

ITA 1168/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judical Member & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. Nos.1168&1169/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Champalal Omprakash......................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Vs. Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................Respondent I.T.A. Nos.1545&1546/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Ito, Ward-43(2), Kolkata................................................................ Respondent Vs. Champalal Omprakash..........................................................................Appellant 49, Madan Mohan Burman Street, Kolkata-700007. [Pan:Aabfc8279L] Appearances By: Shri J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Counsel, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 13, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 15, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As By The Department Against The Impugned Common Order Dated 19.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since Common Issues Involved

Section 131Section 250

recorded for A.Y 2009-10 as against the GP margin declared by the assessee @8.21%. He further observed that since the bogus purchases were good part of the whole purchases, therefore, he applied the GP rate @10.74% on the entire turnover and as a result restricted the additions to Rs.3142800