← 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

Luvkesh Textile Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 4(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6054/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarluvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax Circle 201, Maxheal House, Swami 4(2)(1) Vs. Ayyappa Mandir Marg, Bangur Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar, Goregaon West, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400104 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Lukesh Textile Industries Income Tax Circle Private Limited 4(2)(1) Vs. 21/22 A Chunawal Ind Estate, 640 Aayakar Bhavan, Condivita Lane, Andheri East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri A. L. Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Have Been Preferred By Both The Assessee & The Revenue Which Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] With Regard To The Assessment Order Passed Under Luvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 22.03.2024 A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri A. L. Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 69C

appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case Ld. CIT(A) has justified in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchase at 12.5% of such bogus purchases, without appreciating the facts that there was no physical delivery of goods and the purchases claimed ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition u/s 69C to the extent of 12.5% of such bogus purchases as against the entire bogus purchases added by the AO without considering the position of law established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

DCIT-421, Mumbai vs. Lukesh Textile Industries Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result the both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5924/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankarluvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Deputy Commissioner Ltd. Of Income Tax Circle 201, Maxheal House, Swami 4(2)(1) Vs. Ayyappa Mandir Marg, Bangur Aayakar Bhavan, Nagar, Goregaon West, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400104 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of Lukesh Textile Industries Income Tax Circle Private Limited 4(2)(1) Vs. 21/22 A Chunawal Ind Estate, 640 Aayakar Bhavan, Condivita Lane, Andheri East, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl7421K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri A. L. Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Have Been Preferred By Both The Assessee & The Revenue Which Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] With Regard To The Assessment Order Passed Under Luvkesh Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 22.03.2024 A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri A. L. Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 147Section 69C

appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case Ld. CIT(A) has justified in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchase at 12.5% of such bogus purchases, without appreciating the facts that there was no physical delivery of goods and the purchases claimed ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition u/s 69C to the extent of 12.5% of such bogus purchases as against the entire bogus purchases added by the AO without considering the position of law established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

Income Tax Officer, Income Tax vs. Mohinder Kumr, Prashant Vihar

ITA 1652/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2018-19 With Ita No.1652/Del/2024 With C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sh. Mohinder Kumar, Civic Centre, C-3/8, Block-C, Delhi Prasant Vihar, Delhi Pan: Aahpk7777R (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross-Objector) Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department By Ms. Amish S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm The Instant Batch Of Three Cases Pertains To The Single Assessee Herein Sh. Mohinder Kumar. The Revenue & The Assessee Filed Their Respective Appeals Ita No.1652/Del/2024 & C.O. No. 22/Del/2025 For Assessment Year 2021-22 Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal

Section 143(3)

course of hearing that their arises the first and foremost identical issue in all the three instant cases regarding the assessee’s alleged bogus purchases disallowance(s) of Rs.23,14,75,540/- in AY 2018-19 and Rs.34,99,98,506/- in AY 2021-22, respectively. There is further ... have taken divergent views for allowing purchases based on documentary evidences in entirety, disallowing the same in totality and also restricting such bogus purchases to a certain amount of the profit element embedded therein after considering N.K. Proteins Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2017) 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC); as the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gandhidham vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 594/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 594/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Vs. Kamlesh Deoraj Jain, Tax, Bbz-N-108, Khanna Market, Plot No. 20/A, Sector No. 8, Gandhidham, Gandhidham Gandhidham Gujarat 370201 Gujarat 370201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adopj1769Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01 / 12 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/ 01 /2026

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth and CIT vs, Satyanarayana P Rathi wherein the High Court has confirmed the addition @ 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 3. It is therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the AO be restored ... A.Ys. 2017-18 and 2018-19. In fact, the AO in both years made an addition of 12.5% on the very same premise i.e., bogus purchases which has already been struck down by the appellate authority. Disregarding a binding appellate precedent, particularly in the appellant's own case, without fresh