← 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

Shri Rajeshkumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 586/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.586 & 585/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Rajesh Kumar C National Faceless Assessment Centre. Jain. Nfac, New Delhi - 110002 बिधम/ R C Metal Corporation, Shop No.8, 289, Shri Vs. Bhuvan, 4Th Khetwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aacpj7705P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Rajesh Kumar C Jain प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Rajesh Kumar C JainFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

both the years the penalty has been levied on estimation of gross profit rate on the alleged bogus purchases made by the AO. 2. Facts in brief are that, the assessee is an individual engaged trading in the business of particular ferrous and non ferrous metals. Based on some information ... rebutted nor has been found to be non genuine except that the entire addition is based on adhoc estimate of GP rate on alleged bogus purchases, that to be on the basis of some information received from Maharashtra sales tax department, without any independent enquiry by the AO. Once

Shri Rajeshkumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 585/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.586 & 585/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Rajesh Kumar C National Faceless Assessment Centre. Jain. Nfac, New Delhi - 110002 बिधम/ R C Metal Corporation, Shop No.8, 289, Shri Vs. Bhuvan, 4Th Khetwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aacpj7705P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Rajesh Kumar C Jain प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Rajesh Kumar C JainFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 271(1)(c)

both the years the penalty has been levied on estimation of gross profit rate on the alleged bogus purchases made by the AO. 2. Facts in brief are that, the assessee is an individual engaged trading in the business of particular ferrous and non ferrous metals. Based on some information ... rebutted nor has been found to be non genuine except that the entire addition is based on adhoc estimate of GP rate on alleged bogus purchases, that to be on the basis of some information received from Maharashtra sales tax department, without any independent enquiry by the AO. Once

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. ITO Wasrd-3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 41/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

with Bafna Exim Pvt Ltd during the year under consideration. Therefore, Rs.49,00,000/- was added in the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase. Further, the assessee company has received fund of Rs.15,00,000/- from the bogus concern Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has not furnished ... merits, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has not explained the genuineness of the transactions and therefore it is a case of bogus purchase relating to the various concern of Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain, and assessee was ITA Nos.40 & 41/SRT/2022 Ganesh Ganpat Alim engaged in taking accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition

Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 40/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -1(1)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.41/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Ganesh Ganpat Alim, Vs. The Ito, B-205, Mahashakti Appartment, Ward -3(3)(1), Jai Shree Jahannath, Nr. Manvel Panda Surat. Road, Nr. Mahak City Virar East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 401305. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ambpa5834F Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit(Dr) With Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 22/03/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 08/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”], Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 & A Penalty Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

with Bafna Exim Pvt Ltd during the year under consideration. Therefore, Rs.49,00,000/- was added in the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase. Further, the assessee company has received fund of Rs.15,00,000/- from the bogus concern Delight Diam Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has not furnished ... merits, Ld. DR submitted that assessee has not explained the genuineness of the transactions and therefore it is a case of bogus purchase relating to the various concern of Mr. Pravin Kumar Jain, and assessee was ITA Nos.40 & 41/SRT/2022 Ganesh Ganpat Alim engaged in taking accommodation entries only. Therefore, addition

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rps Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2781/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S. Rps Infra Central Circle 5(1), Projects Pvt Ltd., Room No. 1928, C, 113 Shyam Kamal, 19Th Floor, Airindiabldg, 27, Tejpal Road, Nariman Point, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr3607E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri.Dr. Kishor Dhule Cit-Dr & Smt. Neeraja Sharma.Dr Respondent By : Shri. Jp Bairagra, Shri Ashiskumar Bairagra & Shri Akhilesh Pevekar. Ar Date Of Hearing 06.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri.Dr. Kishor Dhule CIT-DR &For Respondent: Shri. JP Bairagra
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 50,43,000/- on account of bogus purchase ignoring ITA Nos. 2781/Mum/2022 M/s RPS Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. the fact. that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, andpayments by account ... referred at page 7 to 47 of the order. The assessing officer dealt on the facts and submissions on expenditure on account of bogus purchases at Page 32 to 40 of the order and made disallowance of purchases from M/s Nidhi enterprises of Rs.50,43,000/-. On the second disputed

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 539/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

outset, it is submitted that the penalty proceedings are initiated only for the addition made by estimating Gross Profit o 5% on the alleged bogus purchases from dealers who are listed as "Hawala" dealers by the Sales Tax authorities. 2. Our clients have always categorically held that purchases from these ... Assessee and submissions made by the DR, we find that, ultimately penalty has been levied by estimating the gross profit @ of 5% on alleged bogus purchases. The assessee’s explanation in all years in the course of the penalty proceedings have been that, it has furnished the entire details

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 538/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

outset, it is submitted that the penalty proceedings are initiated only for the addition made by estimating Gross Profit o 5% on the alleged bogus purchases from dealers who are listed as "Hawala" dealers by the Sales Tax authorities. 2. Our clients have always categorically held that purchases from these ... Assessee and submissions made by the DR, we find that, ultimately penalty has been levied by estimating the gross profit @ of 5% on alleged bogus purchases. The assessee’s explanation in all years in the course of the penalty proceedings have been that, it has furnished the entire details

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-18(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in all the years are allowed

ITA 537/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri. Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.535,536,537,538 & 539/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2004-05,2005-06,2007- 08,2008-09 & 2009-10) Reshma Enterprises Income Tax Officer 18(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai, बिधम/ Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Earnesh 282, Kilachand Mansion, Vs. House Nariman Point Mumbai- Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai- 400081 400002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaafr7937B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Mohammed Anas Siddique प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2023

For Appellant: Mohammed Anas SiddiqueFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR
Section 147Section 2Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

outset, it is submitted that the penalty proceedings are initiated only for the addition made by estimating Gross Profit o 5% on the alleged bogus purchases from dealers who are listed as "Hawala" dealers by the Sales Tax authorities. 2. Our clients have always categorically held that purchases from these ... Assessee and submissions made by the DR, we find that, ultimately penalty has been levied by estimating the gross profit @ of 5% on alleged bogus purchases. The assessee’s explanation in all years in the course of the penalty proceedings have been that, it has furnished the entire details