← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Ltd, Guntur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection raised by the assessee is disposed off as mentioned herein above

ITA 248/VIZ/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Polisetty Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Somasundaram Pvt Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Lakshmipuram Main Road, Colony, Ring Road, Guntur-522 007, Gujjanagundla, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh-522006. Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) C.O. No. 03/Viz/2023 (In आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.248/Viz/2022) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16) M/S. Polisetty Somasundaram Pvt Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle-1, D.No. 3-30-17, Sundaram Colony, 3Rd Floor, Rajkamal Complex, Ring Road, Gujjanagundla, Lakshmipuram Main Road, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522006. Guntur-522 007, Pan: Aabcp 3168 Q Andhra Pradesh. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Revenue By : Dr Satya Sai Rath, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr Satya Sai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

prove that the cash withdrawals were used for the purchase of tobacco and therefore made an addition of Rs. 17,71,40,620/- as bogus purchases. Further, the Search Team also could not find the stock worth Rs. 17,71,40,617/- during the course of search. Aggrieved ... justified in holding that the addition of Rs. 17,71,40,620/- made by the Assessing Officer towards bogus purchase is outside the scope of additions that could be made in the assessment U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting

Mehul Prakash Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO, W-27(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground No.1(a) and (b) of the appeal are against reopening of assessment, in absence of any argument , are dismissed

ITA 944/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. Prashant Maharishi, A Before Shri. Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Sandeep Singh Karhailit Assessment Year: Assessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta Mr. Mehul Prakash Mehta V. Ito, W-27(1)(1) 27(1)(1) 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment 401/402, Mahalaxmi Apartment Mumbai 16, Akash, 90 Feet Road Akash, 90 Feet Road Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Nath Panth Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aghpm8335M Pan No. Shri V. D. Parmar, A.R. Assessee By: Shri Mahita Nair, D.R. Revenue By: 12.10.2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement Pronouncement : 27.10.2023

For Appellant: Shri Mahita Nair, D.RFor Respondent: 12.10.2023
Section 1Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

assessment proceedings started. 04. The Learned Assessing Officer referred to the information where the assessee is alleged to have taken accommodation entries on bogus purchases to the extent of Rs.3,61,83,004/- from 19 different parties. When questioned, the assessee stated that the purchases are genuine and submitted ... furnished by the assessee, found that the assessee has not proved the genuineness of the purchases. Accordingly, he made addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, amounting to Rs.45,22,875/-. The order under section 143(3) read with 147 of the Act was passed on 15/3/2015, wherein total income