← 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

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Arvind Soni, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 460/SRT/2019[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. Mukesh Babulal Parlecha, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (ITA Nos

ITA 267/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.225 & 226/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Surat. Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Surat. 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) & Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2022

Section 143(3)

erred in restricted the addition made by the AO of Rs.6,68,91,952/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns ... entries in the form of unsecured loans, bogus purchases/sales to the interested parties. Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition at the rate of 100% of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.6,68,91,952/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat vs. Mukesh Babulal Parlecha, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (ITA Nos

ITA 266/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.225 & 226/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Surat. Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Surat. 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) & Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2022

Section 143(3)

erred in restricted the addition made by the AO of Rs.6,68,91,952/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns ... entries in the form of unsecured loans, bogus purchases/sales to the interested parties. Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition at the rate of 100% of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.6,68,91,952/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Mukesh Babulal Parlecha, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (ITA Nos

ITA 226/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.225 & 226/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Surat. Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Surat. 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) & Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2022

Section 143(3)

erred in restricted the addition made by the AO of Rs.6,68,91,952/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns ... entries in the form of unsecured loans, bogus purchases/sales to the interested parties. Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition at the rate of 100% of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.6,68,91,952/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

Mukesh Babulal Parlecha, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees (ITA Nos

ITA 225/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.225 & 226/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Surat. Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.266 & 267/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Mukesh Babulal Parlechav, Surat. 201, Panchratna Appartment, Dalgiya Mohalla, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Apopp4334F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) & Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25/07/2022

Section 143(3)

erred in restricted the addition made by the AO of Rs.6,68,91,952/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns ... entries in the form of unsecured loans, bogus purchases/sales to the interested parties. Therefore, Assessing Officer made addition at the rate of 100% of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.6,68,91,952/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

I.T.O. Ward -2(2), Nagpur vs. Shri Ramansingh Balbirsingh Swanni, Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 472/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito Vs. Ramsingh Balbirsingh Swanni Ward 2(2) Room No. 315, Prop: Industrial Supply Syndicate 3Rd Floor Aayakar Bhawan Bf-2, Amar Vihar, Kamptee Road Telangkhedi Road, Nagpur Civil Lines, Nagpur Pan No.:Aybps 9233 L Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Vitthal M Bhosle Jcit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Abhay Agarwal, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/07/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 17/05/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal M Bhosle JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

case, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,16,60,724/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases through Hawala Dealers. (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition ... considered the submissions of the assesseee but finalized the assessment after making an addition of Rs.2,16,60,724/- on account of bogus purchases. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee had reiterated its submissions

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 935/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, 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.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

justified to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and be cancelled. 3. The Hon’ble ITAT has reduced the addition from 100% of Bogus Purchases to 10% of Bogus Purchases. 4. To grant ad interim stay against the wrong demand till disposal of Appeal. 5. Appellant craves Leave ... r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs.3,24,23,170/- after making addition on account of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.3,02,85,190/-. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who had confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 934/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, 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.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

justified to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and be cancelled. 3. The Hon’ble ITAT has reduced the addition from 100% of Bogus Purchases to 10% of Bogus Purchases. 4. To grant ad interim stay against the wrong demand till disposal of Appeal. 5. Appellant craves Leave ... r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs.3,24,23,170/- after making addition on account of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.3,02,85,190/-. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who had confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal

Dilawar Shaikh, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 933/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, 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.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

justified to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and be cancelled. 3. The Hon’ble ITAT has reduced the addition from 100% of Bogus Purchases to 10% of Bogus Purchases. 4. To grant ad interim stay against the wrong demand till disposal of Appeal. 5. Appellant craves Leave ... r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act at total income of Rs.3,24,23,170/- after making addition on account of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.3,02,85,190/-. 6. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A) who had confirmed the addition. However, on further appeal