← 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

Shilpkars Clothing Company, Mumbai vs. ACIT-22(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1503/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhshilpkars Clothing Vs. Acit-22(2), Company, 702, Rna Kutir, Room No. 417, 4 Th Floor, 14Th Road, Chembur, Tower No. 6, Vashi Mumbai – 400071 Railway Station Building, Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai - 400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Ablfs1537J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Dharmesh Shah & Jigna Jain Respondent By : Suresh D. Gaikwad Date Of Hearing 13.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-49, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2022 For A.Y. 2011- 12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: (Grounds) “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Appreciating That The Reopening Of Assessment Was Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Alleged Bogus Purchases By Working Of Peak Credit Amounting To Rs.1,17,10,542/- 3. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts In Not Granting Adequate Opportunity To The Appellant & Dismissing The Appeal. 4. The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Amend, Alter, Delete All Or Any Of The Forgoing Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Dharmesh Shah &For Respondent: Suresh D. Gaikwad
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69C

assessment was bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of alleged bogus purchases by working of peak credit amounting to Rs.1,17,10,542/- 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts

Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1120/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1120/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mahendrakumar Gulraj Jain बिधम/ Ito-19(2)(3) Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, C/O D. C. Bothra & Co. Vs. Llp (Formerly Known As Matru Mandir, Tardeo D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, Road, Mumbai-400007. Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadpj2988D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh Revenue By: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 27/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 26/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.03.2023 For Ay. 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Disallowing 12.50% Of Purchases Amounting Of Rs.2,16,63,455/- Made From Two (2) Dealers (M/S. Anand Deep Metal & M/S. Viraj Steel & Alloys). 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 15.09.2010 For Ay. 2010-11 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.7,39,169/-. & The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 23.03.2016. The Ao Noted That He Received An Information From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai From Which He Understood

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Dharmvir D Yadav (Sr. DR)
Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 44A

gives the assessee savings on account of non-payment of taxes and other incidental expenses. In such a situation 12.5% disallowance out of bogus purchases makes the ends of justice. However the prayer of assessee is that when only the profits earned by the assessee on these bogus purchases transaction ... profit already shown by assessee and offered to tax should be reduced from the standard 12.5% being directed to be disallowed on account by bogus purchases. I find merit in such a contention of assessee and direct that the disallowance in this case be restricted to 12.5% of the bogus

Vivek Shyam Johari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(3)(6), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1697/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1697/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2013-14) Vivek Shyam Johari, 13/15, Madanji Mohanji Bldg, 4Th Floor, Flat No.40, Anantwadi, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002 Pan: Aidpj-8746-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 23(3)(6), Mumbai Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri S.M.Bandi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri S.M.BandiFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 132Section 143(3)

obtained accommodation entries from Dharam Impex amounting to Rs.5,21,42,000/-. 2 The Assessing Officer made G.P. addition of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases. Against the assessment order dated 28/03/2016 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 [in short ‘the Act’], the assessee carried ... said purchases were stated to be bogus. The Assessing Officer made G.P addition of Rs.26,07,100/- by estimating G.P @5% on the bogus purchases. The assessee has declared G.P of 0.116% for the impugned assessment year on regular sales. The same has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer

Purna Purshottam Exports, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1617/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1617/मुं/2023 ("न.व 2008-09) Purna Purshottam Exports, Gala No.329, Vardhman Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, Sv Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai 400 068 Pan: Aaefp-8085-E ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(5) , Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri K. Gopal ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sunny Kachhwaha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 25/07/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 25/07/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 132

entries to the 2 tune of Rs.13,00,556/- during the Financial Year 2007-08. The Assessing Officer made addition on the entire alleged bogus purchases . The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order, hence, the present appeal ... assessee submitted that the sales declared by assessee have been accepted by the Assessing Officer, without purchases there cannot be sales. Therefore, entire alleged bogus purchases cannot be added. The ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed that the assessee has declared G.P of 5.95% for the period relevant to Assessment Year

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai vs. Suraj Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1277/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1277/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dcit-19(3) बिधम/ Suraj Exports Matru Mandir, Room De-8011/12/13 Bharat Vs. No.206, Grant Road, Diamond Bourse Bandra Mumbai-400007. Kurla Complex Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/07/2023 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/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Entire Addition Made By Ao (Purchases To The Tune Of Rs.3,79,50,581/-) & Restricting It To 8% N.P Of Such Purchases. 3. Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income On 11.10.2007 Declaring Total Income At Rs.53,24,567/-. Later, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened On The Basis Of Information Received From The Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That During The Search & Survey Action Conducted In This Case Of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain & Family On 03.10.2013, The Investigation Wing Came To Know That Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Controlled Many Companies/Firm/ Proprietory

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)

that the assessee had made purchase of Rs.3,79,50,581/- from these concerns of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain was pleased to add 8% of bogus purchases which comes to Rs.30,36,046/- and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.83,60,613/- by assessment order dated 24.03.2015 (First round ... genuineness of the purchase which assessee failed to do, so he was pleased to add the entire purchases of Rs.3,79,50,581/- as bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. 5 A.Y. 2007-08 Suraj Exports CIT(A) who was pleased to restrict the addition