← 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

ACIT 28 (2), Mumbai vs. Milind V. Deshmukh, Mumbai

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

ITA 6938/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6938/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Milind V. Deshmukh Acit- 28(2), Plot No. R-478, Ttc Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, बिधम/ Industrial Area, Midc Rabale, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 701 Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aewpd2450D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12.09.2022 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 30.08.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-26, Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2009- 2010. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Ramchandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

Rs.3,80,000/- levied u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act as the penalty was levied on quantum additions made on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that the onus was on the assessee to the establish the genuineness of such purchases by producing such parties before the assessing Officer ... held that the entire purchase cannot be added and restricted the addition by estimating the GP rate 12.5% to the total bogus purchases. Accordingly, the AO has imposed penalty of Rs. 3,80,000 on ad hoc addition @ 12.5%. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty on the ground

Ratn & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO -19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 1981/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalratan & Co. 5 – Navyug Sagar, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aadfr3713J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-19(3)(1) Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400007. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 11.09.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Not Considering That The Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Ld. Assessing

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: None
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250

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 purchase and bogus unsecured loans to various beneficiaries, examination on Oath of 5 ITA No. 1981/Mum/2021- Ratan & Co. Trusted employees of Bhanwarlal Jain and family ... revealed the complete modus operandi used by Bhanwarlal Jain for giving such accommodation entries of bogus purchases and loans and advances to various beneficiaries. The assessee was accordingly show caused vide notice dated 11.12.2019 as to why the alleged transactions of accommodation entries of Rs. 5,30,530/- should