← 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

Dy Comm of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International P Ltd., Mumbai

Appeal of the revenues is dismissed

ITA 286/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.285,286 & 284/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) Dy Comm Of Income Tax- Shailesh Desai, Liquidator बिधम/ 5(3)(1) Mumbai Of Sanghavi International Room No. 573, 5Th Floor, P.Ltd Vs. 708, Raheja Centre, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 M.K.Road Mumbai 400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aakcs7350N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ca. Ekta Sanghavi प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Deepika Arora-Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.03.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023

For Appellant: CA. Ekta SanghaviFor Respondent: Deepika Arora-Sr. AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

concerned, the revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,47,59,597/- levied on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. Assessing Officer based on search conducted in the case of “Bhanwarlal Jain Group” 03.10.2013 where in it was found that ... provided accommodation entry bogus bills etc. to many parties. AO noted that the Assessee has also taken accommodation entries for bogus purchases from some of the concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain Group who had issued bogus bills to the assessee. Assessing Officer noted that Assessee has taken accommodation entry of purchases

Dy Comm of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International P Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenues is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.285,286 & 284/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) Dy Comm Of Income Tax- Shailesh Desai, Liquidator बिधम/ 5(3)(1) Mumbai Of Sanghavi International Room No. 573, 5Th Floor, P.Ltd Vs. 708, Raheja Centre, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 M.K.Road Mumbai 400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aakcs7350N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ca. Ekta Sanghavi प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Deepika Arora-Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.03.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023

For Appellant: CA. Ekta SanghaviFor Respondent: Deepika Arora-Sr. AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

concerned, the revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,47,59,597/- levied on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. Assessing Officer based on search conducted in the case of “Bhanwarlal Jain Group” 03.10.2013 where in it was found that ... provided accommodation entry bogus bills etc. to many parties. AO noted that the Assessee has also taken accommodation entries for bogus purchases from some of the concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain Group who had issued bogus bills to the assessee. Assessing Officer noted that Assessee has taken accommodation entry of purchases

Dy Comm of Income Tax-5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sanghavi Exports International Private Limited, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenues is dismissed

ITA 284/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.285,286 & 284/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14) Dy Comm Of Income Tax- Shailesh Desai, Liquidator बिधम/ 5(3)(1) Mumbai Of Sanghavi International Room No. 573, 5Th Floor, P.Ltd Vs. 708, Raheja Centre, 7Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Nariman Point Mumbai-400021 M.K.Road Mumbai 400020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aakcs7350N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ca. Ekta Sanghavi प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Deepika Arora-Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 28.03.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023

For Appellant: CA. Ekta SanghaviFor Respondent: Deepika Arora-Sr. AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

concerned, the revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 1,47,59,597/- levied on account of alleged bogus purchases. The Ld. Assessing Officer based on search conducted in the case of “Bhanwarlal Jain Group” 03.10.2013 where in it was found that ... provided accommodation entry bogus bills etc. to many parties. AO noted that the Assessee has also taken accommodation entries for bogus purchases from some of the concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain Group who had issued bogus bills to the assessee. Assessing Officer noted that Assessee has taken accommodation entry of purchases

Sawailal Bhatti, Mumbai vs. ITO- 20(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he could not file the appeal in time. Thus, on this ground, appeal dismissed by the Ld

ITA 3192/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.3188,3190 & 3192/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) Sawailal Bhatti Ito-20(3)(2) Mumbai 161, 4Th Floor, Panchshil Matru Mandir, Parel, बिधम/ Niwas, 5Th Floor Mumbai- 400007 Kamathipura, Vs. Mumbai-400008 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aempb3718G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Dhaval Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : M/S. Deepika Arora- Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.03.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: M/s. Deepika Arora- Sr. AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

consolidated order. In all the year the penalty has been levied on account of adhoc addition of GP rate on bogus purchases. 2. In the assessment order, the addition have been made by the AO on the basis of certain information received from Sales Tax authorities that assessee had made ... purchases from various suspicious parties. The Assessing Officer accordingly applied GP rate on adhoc basis at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases and same was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). In Tribunal, in the quantum proceedings for the AY 2009-10 & 2011-12, the Tribunal

Sawailal Bhatti, Mumbai vs. ITO- 20(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he could not file the appeal in time. Thus, on this ground, appeal dismissed by the Ld

ITA 3190/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.3188,3190 & 3192/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) Sawailal Bhatti Ito-20(3)(2) Mumbai 161, 4Th Floor, Panchshil Matru Mandir, Parel, बिधम/ Niwas, 5Th Floor Mumbai- 400007 Kamathipura, Vs. Mumbai-400008 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aempb3718G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Dhaval Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : M/S. Deepika Arora- Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.03.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: M/s. Deepika Arora- Sr. AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

consolidated order. In all the year the penalty has been levied on account of adhoc addition of GP rate on bogus purchases. 2. In the assessment order, the addition have been made by the AO on the basis of certain information received from Sales Tax authorities that assessee had made ... purchases from various suspicious parties. The Assessing Officer accordingly applied GP rate on adhoc basis at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases and same was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). In Tribunal, in the quantum proceedings for the AY 2009-10 & 2011-12, the Tribunal

Sawailal Bhatti, Mumbai vs. ITO- 20(3)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, he could not file the appeal in time. Thus, on this ground, appeal dismissed by the Ld

ITA 3188/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.3188,3190 & 3192/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) Sawailal Bhatti Ito-20(3)(2) Mumbai 161, 4Th Floor, Panchshil Matru Mandir, Parel, बिधम/ Niwas, 5Th Floor Mumbai- 400007 Kamathipura, Vs. Mumbai-400008 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aempb3718G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Dhaval Shah प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : M/S. Deepika Arora- Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.03.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.03.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: M/s. Deepika Arora- Sr. AR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

consolidated order. In all the year the penalty has been levied on account of adhoc addition of GP rate on bogus purchases. 2. In the assessment order, the addition have been made by the AO on the basis of certain information received from Sales Tax authorities that assessee had made ... purchases from various suspicious parties. The Assessing Officer accordingly applied GP rate on adhoc basis at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases and same was also confirmed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). In Tribunal, in the quantum proceedings for the AY 2009-10 & 2011-12, the Tribunal