← 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

M/S. Pamstar Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT -19(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 682/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 682/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 680/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 681/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Pamstar Exports Acit - 19(2), Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Dc 5102 Bharat बिधम/ Mumbai-400 007 Diamond Bourse, Bandra Vs. Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaefp4255A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 30.03.2022, Passed By 2

For Respondent: Shri Praveen Shekhar, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

system and assessee was not aware of the new procedure. On merits, assessee has challenged the estimation of GP rate on alleged bogus purchases. 3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee had filed the appeal manually within time before

ACIT of Income Tax Circle-1, Kalyan vs. M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue in both the years are dismissed

ITA 1673/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1673 & 1674/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Thakor Electronics Acit Of Income Tax Circle-1 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Ltd. Nagar, Kalyan West-421301 P-1, P-2, 1St Floor, Shree बिधम/ Rajlxmi Hi-Tech Textile Vs. Park, Bhiwandi-Nashik By Pass Road, Sonale Village, Thane-421302 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabct4323M (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Thanzil Padvekar, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri U. R. Singh, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 24.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 23.03.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi In Relation To Penalty

For Appellant: Shri Thanzil Padvekar, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri U. R. Singh, Ld. AR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

respectively. 2. In both the years, revenue is aggrieved by deletion of addition on account of bogus purchases. Ld. AO had treated the bogus purchases of Rs. 77,73,415/- for AY 2009-10 and Rs. 36,62,945 for AY 2010-11. 3. It has been brought on record ... before us that Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings has reduced the disallowance on account of bogus purchases by applying GP rate @ 25%. Later on, the Tribunal has reduced it further to 12.5% of GP on bogus purchases. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty on the quantum

Kirloskar Chillers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 595/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.594 & 595/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range-11, Pune. 8Th Floor, Cello Platina, Fergusson College Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. Pan : Aabck1730B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.594/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

During the course of such survey proceedings, the director of the appellant company admitted additional income of Rs.22,62,859/- on account of bogus purchases. Accordingly, the appellant company filed a revised return of income on 13.03.2013, offered the said additional income. Against the said return of income, the assessment

Kirloskar Chillers Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, Range - 11, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 594/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.594 & 595/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Chillers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range-11, Pune. 8Th Floor, Cello Platina, Fergusson College Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. Pan : Aabck1730B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Different Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 01.02.2019 For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Two Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.594/Pun/2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri C. H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

During the course of such survey proceedings, the director of the appellant company admitted additional income of Rs.22,62,859/- on account of bogus purchases. Accordingly, the appellant company filed a revised return of income on 13.03.2013, offered the said additional income. Against the said return of income, the assessment

Superflo Filter Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessement Centre, Delhi

ITA 1588/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1588 & 1589/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12) National Faceless Superflo Filters Pvt. Assessment Centre, Ltd. Delhi B-5/103-104 Greenland बनाम/ Co-Op. Society, Vs. Shrinivas Bagarka Road, J. B. Nagar Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcs4955N (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri U. Singh, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 23.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 23.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 31.05.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri U. Singh, Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

details of purchases and sale quantity. Ld. CIT(A) in the quantum proceedings reduced the addition by applying GP rate @ 12.5% on the alleged bogus purchases. 5. Similarly in AY 2011-12, the AO has treated purchases aggregating to Rs. 1,36,19,291/- made from 7 parties ... 2303/Mum/2019). 7. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that here in this case, once it is held that assessee had made bogus purchases and assessee had not disclosed correct profits on such purchases, therefore penalty should be levied on such GP rate addition. 8. After considering the aforesaid submissions

M/S. C. M.. Bright Bars Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2122/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 2122 & 2123/Mum/2021 (A.Ys: 2010-11 & 2011-12) M/S Cm Bright Bars Pvt Vs. Dcit – 5(1) Ltd,705, B Wing, Shanti Aayakar Bhavan, Kamal, Dr. Babasaheb M.K.Road, Ambekar Road, Churchgate, Chinchpokli (E), Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc4577A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Viraj Mehta.Ar Respondent By : Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. Ar Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr.Viraj Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Mr.Ujjawal Kumar. AR
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 32Section 68

same may be quashed and set aside. 3. Addition made u/s 69C of Rs. 2,83,10,347/- as unexplained bogus purchases The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. AO"] u/s 69C as unexplained bogus purchases ... exports. The survey u/s 133A of the Act conducted on 08.01.2013 at the business premises. The revenue authorities found that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills and accommodation entries from the parties listed in the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department Website and the assessee is one of the beneficiary. During