← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune vs. Hanumant Sahebrao Pansare, Pune

Appeal is allowed

ITA 85/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.85/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Shri Hanumant Sahebrao Pansare, Plot No.15B/1, C-1 Block, Midc, Chinchwade, Pune – 411019. Pan: Aanpp 9376 K Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-6, Pune’S In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-6/10022/2018-19 Dated 27.08.2020, In Proceedings U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”]. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

Section 271(1)(c)

outset that the relevant facts regarding correctness of the impugned penalty in issue of Rs.4,08,420/- pertaining to quantum disallowance(s) of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.12,01,591/- are in a very narrow compass. The Assessing ITA No.85/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2010-11 (R) Shri Hanuman Sahebrao ... assessee’s above stated supplier had defaulted in paying VAT bills as per sales tax department’s intimation. This resulted in the impugned bogus purchase disallowance of Rs.12,01,591/- which ultimately stood restricted @10% of the gross profit element in assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No.747/PUN/2017 decided

Chetan Raghunath Lavania, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward- 1 (3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

ITA 73/NAG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.73/Nag/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chetan Raghunath Lavania, The Income Tax Officer, House No.18, Poonam Vihar, Vs Ward-1(3), Nagpur Swawlambi Nagar, Indraprasth Layout, Nagpur – 440022. Pan Aampl 0196 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe- Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 15/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.10.2014 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2011 Passed By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Nagpur. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Assesssment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Is Bad In Law & On Facts & The Learned Cit Appeals Has Erred In Confirming The Same.

Section 143(3)

these impugned parties. The assessee also failed to file details of the addresses of the impugned parties. Therefore, the AO treated these as bogus purchases. 5. The assessee has nowhere claimed that the acceptance of additions during the assessment proceedings was due to any coercion, threat or undue influence

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Pune vs. Shri. Pritam Subhash Mahale, Pune

ITA 183/PUN/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.183/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-2010 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-3, Pune. . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Pritam S Mahale F.No-01, Nihar Apartment, Mayur Colony, Kothrud, Pune-29. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Assailed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/11/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of The Assessment Order Dt. 09/03/2015 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Act, By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-3, Pune [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds As Raised In The Memorandum Are;

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in arriving at the disallowance by adopting a Gross Profit ration of 17.96% on alleged bogus purchase which is without any basis and justification. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred ... Mahale ITA No.183/PUN/2020 AY: 2009-10 the list of entry operators with whom the assessee had alleged hawala transactions and quantification of amount of bogus purchases involved, has put the respondent assessee to notice calling evidential documents to prove the existence of parties and genuineness of transactions

Mbm Tubes P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5938/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Mbm Tubes Pvt Ltd Vs. Ito – 5(2)(3) Mohanlal Jain & Co, Ca Mumbai. Office No. 10, Chartered House, Ground Floor, Dr Ch Street, Marine Lines Mumbai – 2. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm4177L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)Cit(A)-9, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. Mbm Tubes Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honble Cit(A) Erred In Treating The Genuine Purchases As Bogus By Taking Peak Credit Of Purchase Parties Listed On Mvat Site As Un Explained Purchases Of Rs.55,80,857/- As Unexplained U/Sec69C Of The It Act & The Reasons Assigned For Doing Are Wrong & Contrary To The Provision Of Income Tax & Rules Made There Under. 2. Your Appellant Crave,Leave To Add,Alter,Amend,Or Modify Any Or All Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

satisfied with the explanations filed by the assessee and have doubted the genuineness of the business transactions and made an addition on account of bogus purchases of Rs.1,16,37,634/- and finally assessed the total income of Rs.2,35,8,620/- and passed the order ... facts with respect to unsecured loans and deleted the addition u/s 68 of the Act. On the second disputed issue with respect to bogus purchases the CIT(A) has dealt on the transactions on the peak credit basis and restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.55

DCIT.Central Cir.- 3(3), Surat vs. Anjana Exports, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 536/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Anjana Exports, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), 1, Kohinoor Society, Opp. Gk Chambers, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfa0943R आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.536/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Vs. Anjana Exports, Surat. 1, Kohinoor Society, Opp. Gk Chambers, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfa0943R Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14 /11/2022

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

examined on oath which established that Bhanwarlal Jain and family have been using 70 benami concerns to give accommodation entries in the" nature of bogus purchases and bogus unsecured loans to various beneficiaries. Examination on oath of trusted employees of 516 & 536/SRT/2019/AY.2008-09 M/s Anjana Exports Bhanwarlal Jain and family revealed ... complete modus operandi used by Bhanwarlal Jain for giving such accommodation entries of bogus purchases and loans and advances to various beneficiaries. On the basis of statements given by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and also the dummy partners/directors/proprietors of various entities of this group, and further investigation carried

Ajanta Exports, Surat vs. DCIT.Central Cir.- 3(3), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 516/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Nov 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.516/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) Anjana Exports, Vs. The Dcit, Circle-3(3), 1, Kohinoor Society, Opp. Gk Chambers, Surat. Varachha Road, Surat-395006. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfa0943R आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.536/Srt/2019 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-3(3), Vs. Anjana Exports, Surat. 1, Kohinoor Society, Opp. Gk Chambers, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfa0943R Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14 /11/2022

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

examined on oath which established that Bhanwarlal Jain and family have been using 70 benami concerns to give accommodation entries in the" nature of bogus purchases and bogus unsecured loans to various beneficiaries. Examination on oath of trusted employees of 516 & 536/SRT/2019/AY.2008-09 M/s Anjana Exports Bhanwarlal Jain and family revealed ... complete modus operandi used by Bhanwarlal Jain for giving such accommodation entries of bogus purchases and loans and advances to various beneficiaries. On the basis of statements given by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and also the dummy partners/directors/proprietors of various entities of this group, and further investigation carried

Print Plus P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-7(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result of the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1719/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1719/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बिधम/ Income Tax Office 7(1)(4) Print Plus Private Limited 212, Swastik Chember, Income Tax Office, Vs. Off. Sion Aayakar Bhavan, Trombay Road, Chembur Churchgate, Mumbai-400071. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp7030J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri .N.K. Bhuta Revenue By: Mr.Ujjawal Chavhan, Sr Ar Date Of Hearing: 29/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per: Aby T.Varkey, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri .N.K. BhutaFor Respondent: Mr.Ujjawal Chavhan, Sr AR
Section 133(6)

from the DGIT (investigation) which in-turn was on the basis of an information from Sales Tax Department that assessee was indulging in accepting bogus purchases bills from bogus/hawala bill providers. In this report the AO noted that the assessee has taken such service/ accommodation from the following two companies ... sales could have taken place; and therefore he was of the opinion that the profit embedded in the accommodation transaction in respect of the bogus purchases need only to be taxed. So he estimated the same at the rate of 25% of the purchases price by observing as under

ITO 28 )(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S N G Group, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6748/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Ng Group Ito, 28(2)(3) Plot No.8, Sector 11, Opp R. No. 310, 3 Rd Floor, Juinagar Rly Station, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vs. Vashi Navi Mumbai Sanpada, Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai–400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E M/S Ng Group Ito, 28(2)(3) Plot No.8, Sector 11, Opp R. No. 310, 3 Rd Floor, Juinagar Rly Station, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vs. Sanpada, Vashi Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai–400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.11.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR
Section 36(1)(ii)Section 41(1)Section 68

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to restrict the addition of bogus purchases to 12.5% as against 100% addition made by the Assessing Officer on account bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that parties from whom these purchases were ... case of N.K.Proteins Ltd Vs DCIT (769 OF 2017), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed 100% addition made on account of bogus purchases. (9) The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT (A) on the above grounds be reversed and that of the Assessing officer be restored