← 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-23(3)(6), Mumbai vs. Swarnsarita Jewellers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1420/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1420/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Ito-23(3)(6) बिधम/ Swarnsarita Jewellers Room No. 608, Earnest 1/E, Ruby Chamber, Vs. House, Nariman Point, 40/42, Dhanji Street, Mumbai-400021. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400003. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abyfs2206F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Suchek Anchaliya Shri Tushar Nagori Revenue By: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Mumbai Dated 27.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue In This Appeal Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.98 Lakhs Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter “The Ao”) U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading In Gold & Diamond Jewellery & Precious Stones. For Ay 2017-18 The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay. 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.15,73,840/-. The Ao Observed That, Search Action Was Conducted In The Case Of One, M/S. Raksha Bullion On 13.11.2016, In The Course Of Which Cash Of Rs.2.50

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri Suresh D. Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 132(4)Section 68

stock is matching with the corresponding sales. The A.O. as not found any, back dating of the entries, evidence of bogus sales, evidence of bogus purchases, and non-existing cash in the books of account. Hence the corresponding as available with employees of appellant of Rs.98 ... genuine, but ultimately he did not dispute this purchase or the invoice, nor did he make any addition/disallowance by way of bogus purchases. He also showed us that, the AO had cherry picked the purchases made from M/s Zee Bangles Pvt Ltd from the stock register and made a false