← 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 -2, Pune vs. M/S. M.B. Gharpuray Engineers & Contractors, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 550/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.550/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dcit, Circle-2, Pune. M/S.M.B.Gharpuray Engineers & Vs Contractors, 838, Anohar Residency, Bmcc Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aacfm 4994 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Dcit, Circle-2, Pune Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune Dated 28.07.2020 Emanating Out Of The Penalty Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’). The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Addition Was Not Made On Estimate But On Finding That Purchases Were Bogus. 2) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate The Finding Of The Assessing Officer At Para 4.6 Of The Assessment Order Wherein It Is Clearly Stated That The Assessee Is Regularly Inflating

Section 254(2)Section 271(1)(c)

regularly inflating ITA No.550/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2011-12 DCIT, Circle-2, Pune Vs. M/s.M.B.Gharpuray & Engineers & Contractors [R] some purchases every year through such bogus purchases. 3) The appellant prays that the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) be held to be bad in law and be quashed and that ... 94/PUN/2021 for the A.Y. 2012-13. 3. On the contrary, the ld.DR for the Revenue pleaded that the penalty is with reference to the bogus purchases. The information about the said bogus purchases were received from an independent government agency, therefore, the said appeal is covered by the Exception Clause

ACIT, Central Circle1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Peninsula Land Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5632/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahaman, Accountat Member Ita No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit, Cc – 1(3) Vs. M/S Peninsula Land 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, No. 2, Peninsula (Annexe), M.K .Road, Spenta, Mathuradas Mumbai – 400020. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5173A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Aditya Rai. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya Rai. DRFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

overlooking the fact that during the search proceeding of u/s 132 of the Act, the assessee had admitted additional income on account of bogus purchase and thereafter the assessee had retracted the admission made without supporting evidence, whereas, such retraction is not admissible as per the decision ... income from business operations includes realty sales, lease rentals and services. 3. The A.O has received the information that the assessee company has made bogus purchases amounting to Rs.10,36,19,844/- and a show cause notice was issued referred at Para 3 of the AO order. Whereas the assessee

Unique Estates Dev. Co. Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT Cent. Cir-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2110/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2110/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Unique Estates Dev. Co. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-4(1) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.1906, 19Th Vs. Construction House-B, 2Nd Floor, Air India Bldg, Floor, 623, Linking Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Khar (W), Mumbai-400052. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0699N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2022 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)-52, Mumbai Dated 26.10.2021 For Assessment Year 2011-12 Against The Penalty Confirmed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, On Issue Of Advancing Of Interest Free Loans Of Rs.4,68,220/- & So Called Bogus Purchases Of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant Brought To Our Notice That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 30.09.2011 Declaring The Total Income Of Rs.12,39,12,768/-. The Scrutiny Assessment Was Completed On 18.03.2014 U/S 143(3) Of The Act Assessing Total Income (Normal Computation) At Rs.21,59,51,554/-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay B. SawantFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkarni
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

issue of advancing of interest free loans of Rs.4,68,220/- and so called bogus purchases of Rs.5,84,076/-.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Sanjay B. Sawant brought to our notice that the assessee had filed return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring ... mall treated as ‘income from House Property’ instead of ‘Business Income’ hence disallowance of proportionate expenses and depreciation ------Rs.8,97,14,126/- (iv) Bogus Purchase -----------Rs.5,84,076/- Total Additions --------Rs.9,20,38,784/- 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the addition made