← 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

Vipin Madanlal Thapar, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 472/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhvipin Madanlal Thapar Vs. Dcit,Cc-1 502, A-Wing, Shree Room No. 10, 6Th Floor, Raveehi Apt., Plot A-Wing, Ashar I.T. Park, No.14/15, Sector 20, Road 16-Z, Koparkhairane, Wagle Indl. Estate, Navi Mumbai – 400 709 Thane, 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Acjpt9204A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Rachana Bhanushali Respondent By : Ketki Desai Date Of Hearing 16.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed The Cit(A)-11, Pune, Dated 14.01.2022 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law In Upholding The Assessment Order Even Though The Underlying Order Under Section 127 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. 2. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Disallowance Of 100% Of The Alleged Bogus Purchases Amounting To Rs.125,60,620 Ignoring The Plethora Of Evidence Placed On Record Mainly On The Basis That The Vendors Did Not Appear Before The Authorities Below.

For Appellant: Rachana BhanushaliFor Respondent: Ketki Desai
Section 127Section 143(2)

BECAUSE the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the disallowance of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs.125,60,620 ignoring the plethora of evidence placed on record mainly on the basis that the vendors did not appear before the authorities below

DCIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Adinathay Enterprises, Mumbai

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

ITA 1508/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1508/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Adinathya Dcit- 32(1), Enterprises, R. No. 702, 7Th Floor, बिधम/ Shop No. 6, Harjas Chs Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Ltd. Divine Home Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra Colony, Borivali (W)M (East), Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 103 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaqfa1188F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 26.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 22.12.2021, Passed By Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2012-13. 2

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Sinha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Dumane, Ld
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty of Rs. 40,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) on addition of Rs. 1,15,516/- being GP @ 12.5% of the total bogus purchase upheld in the quantum proceedings by Ld. CIT(A). 3. The facts in brief are that, assessee is engaged in the business of builder ... developer. During the assessment proceedings, AO had disallowed a sum of Rs. 9,24,124/- on account of alleged bogus purchase made from 2 parties, on the basis of certain information from VAT department. The purchases were disallowed on the basis of list of some alleged suspicious dealers published

M/S Mahalaxmmi International, Mumbai vs. ITO-19 (2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5200/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5200/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Mahalaxmi Nfac, Delhi International, Prop. Nilesh Kishor Mehta, बिधम/ 5, Trimbak Parshuram Street, Vs. 6Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Agbpm7983P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Chhawachharia, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 01.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Impugned Order Dated 23.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 For Ay 2019-20. 2

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja ChhawachhariaFor Respondent: Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

enhancing the addition of purchases by 100% instead of 12.5% made by the AO after applying GP rate on alleged bogus purchases at Rs. 94,22,199/-. 3. The facts in brief are that, the assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of reseller in Ferrous and non-Ferrous