← 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

I.T.O. - 23(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Grace Development Associates, Mumbai

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

ITA 712/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 23(1)(5) Vs. M/S Grace Development Room.No.113,1St Floor Associates Matru Mandir, 101, B-Wing, Landmark Tardeo Road, Building, 1St Floor, 150 Mumbai – 400 007 Pali Road, Nr. Hdfc Bank, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400050. Pan/Gir No. : Aahfg5648M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Neeraja Sarma.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Devendra Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 09.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -32, Mumbai Passed U/S 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Neeraja Sarma.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Devendra Jain.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250Section 68

Court Of Mumbai - Nikunj Eximp Enterprises, ITXAL No. 5604 of 2010 The High Court held that the ITAT deleted the addition on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement i.e. reconciliation statement but also in view of the other facts. The ITAT had recorded that ... genuineness of the purchases, he produced bills from the parties and proof of payment by cheque. However, the AO treated the purchases as "bogus" purchases u/s 68 on the ground that the notices u/s 133(6) sent to the alleged suppliers at the address stated in their bills were returned

M/S. Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd, Rourkla vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 109/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate with Shri
Section 133ASection 153ASection 292CSection 69Section 69C

search enquiry, it was confirmed that the concerns from which the purchases have been made were paper concerns and that the concerns were providing bogus purchases, invoices on commission basis. It was the submission that consequently the AO had treated the alleged bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Raipur vs. Harsha Rice Mills Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 170/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

addition of Rs.95,81,300/- out of the addition of Rs.7,30,31,125/-made by the A.O on account of profit on alleged bogus purchases holding such purchased to be not genuine. The 3 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 156 & 170/RPR/2019 purchases ... addition Rs. 6,81,64,321/- out of total addition of Rs.7,30,31,125/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers

Harsha Rice Mills Private Limited, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(1), Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 156/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

addition of Rs.95,81,300/- out of the addition of Rs.7,30,31,125/-made by the A.O on account of profit on alleged bogus purchases holding such purchased to be not genuine. The 3 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO-3(1), Raipur ITA Nos. 156 & 170/RPR/2019 purchases ... addition Rs. 6,81,64,321/- out of total addition of Rs.7,30,31,125/- ignoring the fact that these purchases are nothing but bogus purchases managed through bogus bills?" 2. "Whether on points of law and on facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) having concurrent powers

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4(1), Raipur (Cg) vs. Shri Nand Kishore Agrawal, Raipur (Cg)

The appeal of the Revenue is DISMISSED

ITA 235/BIL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.235/Rpr/2016 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-2012 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4(1), Raipur (C.G.) . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Nand Kishore Agrawal, Moti Nagar, Shiv Steel, Boria Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Ajdpa4766H . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi Revenue By : Shri Piyush Tripathi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Challenges The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Raipur [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 29/02/2016 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Deleting The Addition Carried Out By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur [For Short “Ao”] Vide Assessment Order Dt. 27/03/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) By For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12. Itat-Raipur Page 1 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri R. B. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)

case, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,30,05,870/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases reported in books of accounts. 2. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 3. Any other ground that

P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6931/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

appeal :- “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in restricting the bogus purchases to 25% of the total purchases, while ignoring the fact that all purchases were bogus purchases from other parties & Shri Banwari Lal Jain has admitted ... That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in restricting the bogus purchases to 25% of the total purchases, while ignoring the findings of the investigation wing that all purchases were mere accommodation entries taken by the assessee. 3. That

DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6529/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

appeal :- “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in restricting the bogus purchases to 25% of the total purchases, while ignoring the fact that all purchases were bogus purchases from other parties & Shri Banwari Lal Jain has admitted ... That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in restricting the bogus purchases to 25% of the total purchases, while ignoring the findings of the investigation wing that all purchases were mere accommodation entries taken by the assessee. 3. That

P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 6332/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

appeal :- “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in restricting the bogus purchases to 25% of the total purchases, while ignoring the fact that all purchases were bogus purchases from other parties & Shri Banwari Lal Jain has admitted ... That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law in restricting the bogus purchases to 25% of the total purchases, while ignoring the findings of the investigation wing that all purchases were mere accommodation entries taken by the assessee. 3. That

Atul J Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 113/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.112/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.11 3/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2011-12) Atul J. Shah, 611, 6Th Floor, C-Wing, Shreepati Castle, 208/210 11Th Khetwadi, Khetwadi Main Road, Mumba- 400 004. Pan: Aazps-0720-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400007. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejas Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(1)

assessment for any 2010-11 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from hawala operators. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that as per information received by the Assessing Officer from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, the assessee ... taken bogus purchase entries from ten parties, aggregating to Rs.2,55,29,591/-. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that admittedly the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer to discharge his onus, the Assessing Officer estimated 25% as suppression of profits on alleged bogus purchases

Atul J Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 112/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.112/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2010-11) आअसं.11 3/मुं/2023 ("न.व. 2011-12) Atul J. Shah, 611, 6Th Floor, C-Wing, Shreepati Castle, 208/210 11Th Khetwadi, Khetwadi Main Road, Mumba- 400 004. Pan: Aazps-0720-L ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400007. .....""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Tejas Shah ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2023 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/03/2023 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tejas ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(1)

assessment for any 2010-11 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from hawala operators. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that as per information received by the Assessing Officer from DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, the assessee ... taken bogus purchase entries from ten parties, aggregating to Rs.2,55,29,591/-. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submits that admittedly the assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer to discharge his onus, the Assessing Officer estimated 25% as suppression of profits on alleged bogus purchases