← 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Rohit, Mandi Gobindgarh

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 905/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.905/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito-Ward-1 Shri Rohit Mandi Gobindgarh Shop No.308, Sec-26A बनाम/ At Sirhind, New Libra Kothi Amloh Road, Gobindgarh Vs. Railway Road, Sirhind Fatehgarh Sahib - 147301 Fatehgarh Sahib – 147301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Asopr-3001-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-06- 2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 24-12-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.1509.90 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases While Framing The Assessment. The Sole Ground Of Appeal Read As Under: - Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) / Nfac Was Right In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.15,09,90,967/- As Shown Purchases Expenses Claimed By The Assessee & Nefac Has Added To The Total Income & Taxed As Income From Other Sources U/S 69C Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

sole grievance of the revenue is deletion of addition of Rs.1509.90 Lacs as made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases while framing the assessment. The sole ground of appeal read as under: - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) / NFAC ... Industries (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (174 taxmann.com 547), on similar facts, deleted the full disallowance as made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases. The bench referred to various judicial decisions while arriving at its conclusion. This case law also supports the case of the assessee. The other

Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Centre Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 49/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

purchases as bogus is against the facts and circumstances of the case. b). That the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) about the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.6,60,00,000/- is again not sustainable based on the statement recorded at the back of the assessee, for which, no cross ... revenue read as under: - 1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) was justified in reducing the addition of bogus purchase from Rs.103,79,51,710/- made by AO to Rs.6,60,00,000/-? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case

Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Village Mansoorwal, Tehsil Zira Head Office, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 48/CHANDI/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

purchases as bogus is against the facts and circumstances of the case. b). That the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) about the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.6,60,00,000/- is again not sustainable based on the statement recorded at the back of the assessee, for which, no cross ... revenue read as under: - 1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) was justified in reducing the addition of bogus purchase from Rs.103,79,51,710/- made by AO to Rs.6,60,00,000/-? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Malbros International Pvt Ltd, Tehsil Zira, Faridkot -151203, Ludhiana

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 463/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

purchases as bogus is against the facts and circumstances of the case. b). That the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) about the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.6,60,00,000/- is again not sustainable based on the statement recorded at the back of the assessee, for which, no cross ... revenue read as under: - 1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) was justified in reducing the addition of bogus purchase from Rs.103,79,51,710/- made by AO to Rs.6,60,00,000/-? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana vs. Om Sons Marketing Private Limited, Quila Chowk

The appeal of the assessee stand allowed whereas the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed accordingly

ITA 193/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.48/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Village Mansoorwal Central Circle-2 Tehsil Zira Head Office Ludhiana Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.463/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit M/S Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Central Circle-2 Village Mansoorwal Ludhiana Tehsil Zira Head Office Vs. Old Cantt Road, Faridkot – 151203 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadcm-7203-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.49/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Om Sons Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ Quila Chowk, Old Cantt Road, Centre Circle-2 Vs. Faridkot, Punjab-151203 Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-8962-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

purchases as bogus is against the facts and circumstances of the case. b). That the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) about the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.6,60,00,000/- is again not sustainable based on the statement recorded at the back of the assessee, for which, no cross ... revenue read as under: - 1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) was justified in reducing the addition of bogus purchase from Rs.103,79,51,710/- made by AO to Rs.6,60,00,000/-? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case

ITO, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar vs. Raman Kohli, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 445/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.445/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.437/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Ward - 3 Raman Kohli Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17, Huda, C/O Rama Rolling & General Mills बनाम/ Vs. Jagadhari, Haryana – 135003 Old Ambala Road Opp. Hindu Girls College Jagadhari (Haryana) - 135003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actpk-8263-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate), Sh. B.M. Monga (Advocate)&Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Have Been Preferred On Identical Facts & Issues. First, We

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

that the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases. Finally, aggregate purchases of Rs.1015.06 Lacs were added to the income of the assessee as alleged bogus purchases. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During first appeal, the assessee assailed the action of Ld. AO by way of elaborate written submissions and referred to various ... case laws on the issue of alleged bogus purchases. After due consideration of the same, Ld. CIT(A) made pertinent observations in the impugned order. 4.2 The assessee pointed out that it filed detailed replies to Ld. AO on various dates along with sufficient documentary evidences to substantiate these purchases

ITO, Yamuna Nagar vs. Raman Kohli, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 437/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.445/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.437/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Ward - 3 Raman Kohli Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17, Huda, C/O Rama Rolling & General Mills बनाम/ Vs. Jagadhari, Haryana – 135003 Old Ambala Road Opp. Hindu Girls College Jagadhari (Haryana) - 135003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actpk-8263-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate), Sh. B.M. Monga (Advocate)&Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Have Been Preferred On Identical Facts & Issues. First, We

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

that the assessee failed to substantiate the purchases. Finally, aggregate purchases of Rs.1015.06 Lacs were added to the income of the assessee as alleged bogus purchases. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 During first appeal, the assessee assailed the action of Ld. AO by way of elaborate written submissions and referred to various ... case laws on the issue of alleged bogus purchases. After due consideration of the same, Ld. CIT(A) made pertinent observations in the impugned order. 4.2 The assessee pointed out that it filed detailed replies to Ld. AO on various dates along with sufficient documentary evidences to substantiate these purchases