← 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

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1577/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

turnover of Rs. 1,20,76,373/- which works out to be 34.48 %. And since the assessee has resorted to obtaining bogus purchases bills therefore, the G.P. of the assessee should have been at the higher side, and opined that G.P. of 37.0% would be reasonable in the case ... assessee. Hence the GP of bogus purchase made of Rs.22,74,738/- was worked out to be Rs.8,41,653/- which was added back to the total income of the assessee. For AY. 2010-11 7. The AO has made the G.P addition by observing as under: - “After discussion taking

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1077/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

turnover of Rs. 1,20,76,373/- which works out to be 34.48 %. And since the assessee has resorted to obtaining bogus purchases bills therefore, the G.P. of the assessee should have been at the higher side, and opined that G.P. of 37.0% would be reasonable in the case ... assessee. Hence the GP of bogus purchase made of Rs.22,74,738/- was worked out to be Rs.8,41,653/- which was added back to the total income of the assessee. For AY. 2010-11 7. The AO has made the G.P addition by observing as under: - “After discussion taking

Biren Suresh Karani, Mumbai vs. ITO-31(1)(3), Mum

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1076/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

turnover of Rs. 1,20,76,373/- which works out to be 34.48 %. And since the assessee has resorted to obtaining bogus purchases bills therefore, the G.P. of the assessee should have been at the higher side, and opined that G.P. of 37.0% would be reasonable in the case ... assessee. Hence the GP of bogus purchase made of Rs.22,74,738/- was worked out to be Rs.8,41,653/- which was added back to the total income of the assessee. For AY. 2010-11 7. The AO has made the G.P addition by observing as under: - “After discussion taking