← 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

M/S. Metal Traders, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 33(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1139/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1139/मुं/ 2023 ("न.व.2011-12) M/S. Metal Traders, B/307, E/3, Highway Park, Thakur Complex, Kandivali East, Mumbai 400 101 Pan: Aagfm-3851-K ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-Ward 33(2)(3), C-12, 6Th Floor, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Dinkle Haria, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/06/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

that assessment for assessment year 2011-12 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 24/11/2016 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act made addition by estimating suppressed undisclosed ... profit of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) . The CIT(A) restricted the addition

Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 334/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.333/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat. C-104, Radha Raman Textile Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), C-104, Radha Raman Textile Surat. Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition at 12.5% of bogus purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.2,26,10,841/- ignoring the facts that these purchases ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ld CIT(A) restricted the addition @ 12.5% of bogus purchases observing as follows: “4 Reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench 'SMC' in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Surat vs. M/S. Khazana Bazar Private Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA 333/SRT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.333/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), Vs. M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Surat. C-104, Radha Raman Textile Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.334/Srt/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S. Khazana Bazar Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(3), C-104, Radha Raman Textile Surat. Market, Saroli, Surat- 395010. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafck0726P (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition at 12.5% of bogus purchases as against disallowance made by the AO at the rate of 100% of such purchases amounting to Rs.2,26,10,841/- ignoring the facts that these purchases ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ld CIT(A) restricted the addition @ 12.5% of bogus purchases observing as follows: “4 Reliance placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench 'SMC' in the case of Navin Shantilal Mehta