← 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

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the CO filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5266/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Vs. Amrapali Eden Park Central Circle-7, Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. C-56/40, Sector-62, Noida. Pan: Aahca6217B Co No.133/Del/2015 (Ita No.5266/Del/2014) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amrapali Eden Park Developers Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Ltd., Central Circle-7, C-56/40, Sector-62, New Delhi. Noida. Pan: Aahca6217B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 Order Per C.M. Garg, Jm: This Appeal & The Cross Objection Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee, Respectively, Are Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2014 Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. Co No.133/Del/2015 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Read As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Disallowance Of Rs.2,00,07,633/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of ‘Bogus Purchase’ Which Were Capitalized. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ishtiyaque Ahmed, CIT, DR
Section 131

erred in deleting the addition of disallowance of Rs.2,00,07,633/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of ‘Bogus Purchase’ which were capitalized. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal ... Bogus". Therefore, the purchase expenses to the extent of Rs.2,00,07,633/- is added to the income of the assessee on account of "Bogus Purchases”” 7. The ld.CIT(A) granted relief with the following observations:- “5.1 In the sixth ground of appeal, the appellant has objected to the treatment