← 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

Ramniwas Choyal, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 360/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

that which existed during the search operations. 6. Accordingly, Assessing Officer issued show cause notice vide letter dated 16.10.2019 to explain why the alleged bogus purchases made from the operators controlled by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group should not be 5 ITA NO. 329, 352 & 360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi ... case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs.8,61,353/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

Mahavir M. Jain, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 352/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

that which existed during the search operations. 6. Accordingly, Assessing Officer issued show cause notice vide letter dated 16.10.2019 to explain why the alleged bogus purchases made from the operators controlled by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group should not be 5 ITA NO. 329, 352 & 360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi ... case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs.8,61,353/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- CC-1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 329/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Mahalaxmi Gems Pvt. Ltd., V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 316, Pancharatna Pratishtha Bhavan Opera House, Mumbai -400004 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcm8875H (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Mahavir M. Jain V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber M.K. Road, Churchgate Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Ahnpj4936G (Appellant) (Respondent) Ramniwas Choyal V. Acit – Cc – 1(3) 11, Shakti Chamber Pratishtha Bhavan Rughnathpura Main Road Mumbai - 400020 Surat, Gujarat-395003 Pan: Aknpc1507H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

that which existed during the search operations. 6. Accordingly, Assessing Officer issued show cause notice vide letter dated 16.10.2019 to explain why the alleged bogus purchases made from the operators controlled by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group should not be 5 ITA NO. 329, 352 & 360/MUM/2022 (A.Y. 2015-16) M/s. Mahalaxmi ... case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs.8,61,353/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1186/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee of Rs.94.89Crs., on account of purchase disallowed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the purchase shown by the assessee are bogus purchase from sister concern." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing ... honourable Gujarat High Court in CIT versus Smit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 he sustained the disallowance in court to 12.5% of bogus purchases he noted that the total purchases of ₹ 888,827,942/– is made from specialty papers private limited and ₹ 14,848,200/– is from another sister concern

M/S.Opel Paper Mills Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the learned assessing officer is partly allowed

ITA 1064/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Income Tax, 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Central Circle 4(3)(1) Vs. Kalbadevi Road, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Aaaco7129H The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Opel Paper Mills Limited Central Circle 4(3)(1) 97, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Kalbadevi Road, 6Th Floor, Mk Road, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Hari S. Raheja, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Raj, DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee of Rs.94.89Crs., on account of purchase disallowed by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the purchase shown by the assessee are bogus purchase from sister concern." 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing ... honourable Gujarat High Court in CIT versus Smit P Sheth 356 ITR 451 he sustained the disallowance in court to 12.5% of bogus purchases he noted that the total purchases of ₹ 888,827,942/– is made from specialty papers private limited and ₹ 14,848,200/– is from another sister concern

Arvindkumar Soni, Surat vs. ITO, WD-2(3)(7), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 165/SRT/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.460/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Arvind Soni, Surat. Prop. Of M/S. Balajee Diamond, B-3, 701, Nakshara Platinum, Opp. Mathura Nagari, Palanpur Gam, Surat - 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfmps0796F (Revenue)/(Appellant) (Assessee)/(Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) Arvindkumar Soni, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), B-3, 701, Nakshara Platinum, Surat. Opp. Mathura Nagari, Planpur Gam, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfmps0796F (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection. No.14/Srt/2021 [Arising Out Of Ita No. 460/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2009-10) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Arvind Soni, Surat. Prop. Of M/S. Balajee Diamond, B-3, 701, Nakshara Platinum, Opp. Mathura Nagari, Palanpur Gam, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bfmps0796F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Prakash G. Jhunjhunwala, Ca With Assessee By Shri Anand R. Chourasia, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2022 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

Department, Mumbai, the assessee`s case was re-opened u/s 147 of the I.T. Act. The said information contains details of accommodation entries of bogus purchases, sales, unsecured loan share capital etc. received from VAT Department. In this case the assessee had entered into transaction of Rs.15 ... assessee. Thereafter, a show cause notice issued to the assessee on 19.02.2015, wherein the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the bogus purchase entry of Rs.15,42,62, 091/- should not be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. In response assessee filed written

ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. M/S. Sparsh Impex, Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 60/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअ पीलसं./Ita Nos.27&60/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Sparsh Impex Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(8), Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Surat- Anavil Business Centre, Hazira 395001 Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), M/S Sparsh Impex Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, Anavil 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achfs 7559 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

holding net unverifiable purchases from the impugned parties to the extent of Rs.22,98,65,125/- only whereas the assessee was engaged in bogus purchase from six concerns controlled by the entry providers to the extent of Rs.27,93,74,602/-. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Surat ought to have confirmed the addition at least on the amended facts, to the extent of Rs.22,98,65,125/- which is the bogus purchase from impugned parties, determined by him. (iv) Without prejudice to Grounds No.(i),(ii) & (iii) the Ld. CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances

Sparsh Impex, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 27/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअ पीलसं./Ita Nos.27&60/Srt/2020 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S Sparsh Impex Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(8), Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Surat- Anavil Business Centre, Hazira 395001 Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), M/S Sparsh Impex Room No. 407, 4Th Floor, Anavil 302, Nishit Diamond Complex, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Gujar Fallia, Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Achfs 7559 M (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri H.P.Meena, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

holding net unverifiable purchases from the impugned parties to the extent of Rs.22,98,65,125/- only whereas the assessee was engaged in bogus purchase from six concerns controlled by the entry providers to the extent of Rs.27,93,74,602/-. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case ... Surat ought to have confirmed the addition at least on the amended facts, to the extent of Rs.22,98,65,125/- which is the bogus purchase from impugned parties, determined by him. (iv) Without prejudice to Grounds No.(i),(ii) & (iii) the Ld. CIT(A) in the facts and circumstances