← 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 1(2), Raipur vs. Mesers Mamraj and Sons, Raipur

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

ITA 226/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.209/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Mamraj & Sons Bhatapara Road, Tah.-Tilda, Raipur-493 225 Pan : Aadfm8888K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.226/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Mamraj & Sons Bhatapara Road, Tah.-Tilda, Raipur-493 225 Pan : Aadfm8888K ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,09,619 by estimating profit of 2.9% on alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 7,96,42,000, without any basis and without considering the past history of 7.4% GP for the preceding year i.e., A.Y.13-14 ... justified in allowing substantial relief of Rs. 1,79,00,893/ -by estimating the profit element enjoyed by the assessee on account of bogus purchases of Rs.7,96,42,050/- @ 2.90% as against 25% despite upholding the findings of bogus purchases 2. Whether on the facts of the case

Mesers Mamraj and Sons, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 209/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.209/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Mamraj & Sons Bhatapara Road, Tah.-Tilda, Raipur-493 225 Pan : Aadfm8888K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.226/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Mamraj & Sons Bhatapara Road, Tah.-Tilda, Raipur-493 225 Pan : Aadfm8888K ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.23,09,619 by estimating profit of 2.9% on alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 7,96,42,000, without any basis and without considering the past history of 7.4% GP for the preceding year i.e., A.Y.13-14 ... justified in allowing substantial relief of Rs. 1,79,00,893/ -by estimating the profit element enjoyed by the assessee on account of bogus purchases of Rs.7,96,42,050/- @ 2.90% as against 25% despite upholding the findings of bogus purchases 2. Whether on the facts of the case

DCIT Cir-1, Kalyan vs. Shyam K Gyanchandani, Ulhasnagar

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

ITA 2559/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 1 Vs. Shri Shyamkundandas 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza Gyanchandani, Wayale Nagar, F-212, Udyog Vihar, Kalyan(W)-421301. Near Vithal Wadi, Maharashtra. Ulhasnagar421003. Maharashtra. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aazpg6917H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Paresh Deshpande.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 02.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: 1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That The Penalty Was Levied In Respect Of The Addition Made On The Basis Of Information Received From The Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Shri Shyam K Gyanchandani, Mumbai. Purchase Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods.

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Deshpande.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

Gyanchandani, Mumbai. income of Rs.6,06,148/-.Subsequently the AO has received the information from Sales Tax Department, that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from M/s Neptune Corporation aggregating to Rs. 5,44,589/-.The Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment ... brought to the knowledge of the Assessing officer that the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A) on quantum addition of bogus purchases. Whereas, the CIT(A) has relied on the facts and judicial decisions and restricted the addition to the extent @ 25% of purchases and on further

Income Tax Officer 25(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sheetal Exports, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2987/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2987/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), बिधम/ Sheetal Exports 2Nd Floor, Room No. 233, 202 Triveni 21 Lajpatrai Vs. Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Road, Vile Parle (W) Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400056 Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgfs0869L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & Dharmil Zaveri Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Directing The Ao To Restrict Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/- From 100% To 3% Of The Bogus Purchases Made Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/-.

For Appellant: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & DharmilFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. AR)
Section 68

Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter “the Act”) to the tune of Rs. 2,67,00,986/- from 100% to 3% of the bogus purchases made of Rs. 2,67,00,986/-. 2. Brief facts as noted by the AO is that he has framed the assessment order on the direction ... respectively). According to the AO, these were bogus purchases and therefore the entire purchase was added to the returned income of Rs. 10,82,160/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the Ld.CIT(A) was of the opinion that even though the transaction