← 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

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 536/MUM/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2005-06

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 535/MUM/2023[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2023AY 2004-2005

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

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Priti Construction, Mumbai

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

ITA 2780/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit,Central.C.5(1), Vs. M/Spriticonstructions, Room No. 1928, C, 113, Shyam Kamal, 19Th Floor,Air India 27, Tejpal Road, Bldg, Nariman Point, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aaafp0516A 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 The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 53 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

circumstances of the case and in law, the LdCIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,46,000/- on account of bogus purchase ignoring the M/s Priti Construction., Mumbai. fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, and any expenditure in respect of which payments ... referred at page 6 to 13 of the order. The assessing officer dealt on the facts and submissions on expenditure on account of bogus purchases at Para 7 to 7.11 of the order and made disallowance of purchases from M/s Nidhi Enterprises of Rs.6,46,000/-. On the second disputed

The Dy.Comm. 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 2708/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2023AY 2019-20

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.2,34,36,381/- on account of bogus purchase ITA Nos. 2708/Mum/2022 M/s RPS Infra Projects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. ignoring the fact. that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, andpayments by account ... letter dated 24.09.2021 referred at page 20 of the order. The assessing officer dealt on the facts and submissions on expenditure on account of bogus purchases at Page 20 to 23 of the order and made disallowance of purchases from ten parties aggregating to Rs.2

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

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

ITA 2783/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalethe Dcit, Vs. M/S. Saket Infra Central Circle 5(1), Projects Pvt Ltd., Room No. 1928, L3-308,The Summit 19Th Floor, Airindiabldg, Bay, Service Road, We Nariman Point, Highway, Vile Parle (E) Mumbai-400021. Mumbai –400057. Pan/Gir No. : Aakcs4532L 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 02.05.2023 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

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 36,447/- on account of bogus purchase ignoring the ITA Nos. 2783/Mum/2022 M/s Saket Infraprojects Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, and any expenditure ... 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 Para 6 to 6.10 of the order and made disallowance of Rs.36,447/-. On the second disputed issue of expenditure on bogus job works

Asst. Comm of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Thane vs. M/S. Kundan Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 317/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhkundan Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle -4 Kundan House, Ashar It Park, 6 Th Floor, Harisiddhi Industrial Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Estate, Goraipada, Industrial Estate, Vasai East, Thane West - 400604 Maharashtra – 401208 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack6811G Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Cc-2 Vs. M/S Kundan Industries Room No. 13, A Wing, 6 Th Limited Harisiddhi Indl Floor, Ashar It Park Estate, Gora Pada ,Vasai Wagle Industrial Estate East, Palghar, Road No.16Z, Thane (W) Maharashtra - 401208 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack6811G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: Anne Varghese
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

aforesaid parties, but the notices were returned unserved. Therefore, the A.O has treated the aforesaid purchases amounting to Rs.17,38,77,323/- as bogus purchases and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assesse filed the appeal before ... restricted the addition to the extent of profit embedded in bogus purchases to the extent of 20% of such purchases. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has referred a number of judicial pronouncements of jurisdictional High Court and decision

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT- Circle-4, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 3199/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhkundan Industries Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle -4 Kundan House, Ashar It Park, 6 Th Floor, Harisiddhi Industrial Road No. 16-Z, Wagle Estate, Goraipada, Industrial Estate, Vasai East, Thane West - 400604 Maharashtra – 401208 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack6811G Appellant .. Respondent The Acit, Cc-2 Vs. M/S Kundan Industries Room No. 13, A Wing, 6 Th Limited Harisiddhi Indl Floor, Ashar It Park Estate, Gora Pada ,Vasai Wagle Industrial Estate East, Palghar, Road No.16Z, Thane (W) Maharashtra - 401208 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack6811G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Rahul K. HakaniFor Respondent: Anne Varghese
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

aforesaid parties, but the notices were returned unserved. Therefore, the A.O has treated the aforesaid purchases amounting to Rs.17,38,77,323/- as bogus purchases and added to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved, the assesse filed the appeal before ... restricted the addition to the extent of profit embedded in bogus purchases to the extent of 20% of such purchases. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ld. CIT(A) has referred a number of judicial pronouncements of jurisdictional High Court and decision