← 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

Magan Vadhaji Prajapati, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer WD 19(2) (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1215/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Magan Vadhaji Prajapati बिधम/ Ito Ward-19(2)(3) Room No.15, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Building, Vs. 39/41, Kamal Niwas 1St & 2Nd Floor, Nana Bhandari Street, Mumbai- Chowk, Bhatia Hospital 400004. Lane, Javji Dadaji Marg, Grant Road West, Mumbai-400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anwpp7146B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bharat Kumar Revenue By: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 22.03.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. The Ground Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Is As Under: - 2. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Considering The Facts Whereas Some Suppliers Is Not Belonging To Assessee & Confirm The Addition Made By Ao. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Rs.17,38,432/- Which Was 12.5% Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.”

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi (Sr. AR)
Section 133Section 133(6)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition Rs.17,38,432/- which was 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases.” 2 A.Y. 2011-12 Magan Vadhaji Prajapati 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO is that he received information from DGIT (Inv.) which ... turn came to it from sales tax department that the assessee is involved in taking entries of bogus purchases from the following parties named under: - Sr. No Name of the party Amount 1 Mahavir Corporation 20,20,220/- 2 Rishabh Steel Industries 12,84,789/- 3 Ramdev Trading Company