← 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 Piyush Mahendra Dand, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 29(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 606/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalepiyush Mahendra Dand, Vs. Ito – 29(2)(5) D-102, Vardhman Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, Dr Rr Road, Near Shiv Bandra (E), Sagar Hotel, Mulund (W) Mumbai-400051. Mumbai- 400080. Pan/Gir No. : Ahjpd2561K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ketan Vajani.Ar Respondent By : Smt.Jayashree Thakur.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Jayashree Thakur.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Income-tax (Appeals), hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A) has erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 18,49.368/- made on account of alleged bogus purchases by the assessing officer. Shri Piyush Mahendra Dand., Mumbai. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Shri Piyush Mahendra Dand., Mumbai. Rs.5,54,658/-. The AO has received the information from DGIT (Inv), Mumbai that the assessee was engaged in bogus purchase transactions as per Sales Tax Department and the assessee is a beneficiary. The Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that the income

Rashida Vahanvaty, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 492/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadalerashida Vahanvaty, Vs. Ito, Ward 20(3)(1), 126/A Kasara St, Piramal Chambers, 3Rd Lane, Darkhana, Lalbaug, Reay Road, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai – 400010. Pan/Gir No. : Aaapv8553B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Rajesh Athavale.Ar Respondent By : Ms. Naina K. Kumar.Dr Date Of Hearing 20.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr. Rajesh Athavale.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of INR 12,72,493 made on account of bogus purchase under Section 69C as unexplained expenditure. ITA Nos. 492/Mum/2023 Rashida Vahanvaty, Mumbai. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance ... Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) has received the information from the DGIT (Inv) Mumbai that the assessee has obtained bogus purchases as per sales tax department website, from M/s. Anshu Mercantile Pvt Ltd of Rs.1,68,750/- and M/s.Tube India of Rs.12,72,493/-. The AO has ITA Nos. 492/Mum/2023