← 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, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 128/SRT/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 263

justified in restricting the disallowance of Rs.11,47,32,742/- made by the A.O on account of bogus purchase from 100% to 5% of such bogus purchases without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to prove the bona fide of purchases made from seven bogus parties which were proved ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in restricting the disallowance from 100% to 5% of such bogus purchases without appreciating that bogus purchase could not be restricted to certain percentage when the entire transaction was found as bogus as upheld

Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 313/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.128/Srt/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), 302, Gokul Building, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.13/Srt/2020 [Arising In Ita No.128/Srt/2020] ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt.Ltd., Deputy Commissioner Of 302, Gokul Building, Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, 1St Room No.108, Floor, Surat-395007 Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Applicant) (Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.313/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2014-15) Diva Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Principal Cit-1,Surat 1St 302, Gokul Building, Room No.123, Floor, Vs. Mahidharpura, Pipla Sherry, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Surat-395007 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcd 1389 H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 263

justified in restricting the disallowance of Rs.11,47,32,742/- made by the A.O on account of bogus purchase from 100% to 5% of such bogus purchases without appreciating the facts that the assessee failed to prove the bona fide of purchases made from seven bogus parties which were proved ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in restricting the disallowance from 100% to 5% of such bogus purchases without appreciating that bogus purchase could not be restricted to certain percentage when the entire transaction was found as bogus as upheld

M/S. Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Mumbai

ITA 271/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 271 & 272/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Cit(A), Mumbai M/S Rolex Lanolin Products Ltd. बिधम/ 14, Old Tejpal Ind. Estate, Vs. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 072 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacr3499P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Bharat Chovatia Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 07.07.2022 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 06.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2009-10 & 2010-11. 2

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Chovatia Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 29,090/-, and in AY 2010-11, assessee is aggrieved Rs. 78,072/- on account of bogus purchases. 4. Here in these cases, on the basis of information that assessee company had taken accommodation entries for bogus purchases in the following assessment years ... perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the addition was made in the assessment order on account of bogus purchases and the entire purchase amount was added by the AO from the alleged parties. First Appellate Authority, i.e. Ld. CIT(A) has held that assessee has only tried