← 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

Rekha R. Kulkarni, Mumbai vs. The ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1522/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1522/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Smt Rekha Rajaram बिधम/ Acit-Circle-25(3) Kulkarni Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Vs. 32, Prabhat Apartment, Kurla Complex, Bandra Hanuman Road, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400051. (E), Mumbai-400057. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aehpk7214B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kalpesh Turalkar Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2022 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 28.04.2022 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.11,47,516/- By Estimating Gp @ 25% Of Rs.45,90,063/- Considered As Alleged Bogus Purchase. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred While Confirming The Addition Of Rs.11,47,516/- By Not Considering The Fact That The Appellant Had Produced The Evidence In Respect Of The Consumption Of Purchases From M/S. Jainam Trade Corporation, M/S. Chirag Corporation, M/S. Universal Trading Co., Jindal Steel Corporation, Revika Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd, Bhumi

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh TuralkarFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 147

learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,47,516/- by estimating GP @ 25% of Rs.45,90,063/- considered as alleged bogus purchase. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred while confirming the addition of Rs.11 ... Department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer in this case has made hundred percent addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to 21,41,657/-. Except for reproducing assessee’s reply in the assessment order the AO did not do anything. He simply wrote that