← 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

Ravi Metallics Limited, Rourkela vs. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 34/CTK/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaravi Metallics Limited, I/10, Civil Township, Rourkela-769004 Pan No.Adqps 4031 G ………………Assessee Versus Pr.Cit, Sambalpur ………………..Revenue Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar For The Assessee Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit-Dr For The Revenue Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit, Sambalpur, Passed U/S.263 Of The Act In Case No.Pcit/Sbp/263/26/2018-19, Dated 29.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. Heard On The Question Of Condonation Of Delay 2. On Perusal Of The Record, We Found That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Barred By 686 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Filed An Application Along With Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay, Wherein It Has Been Submitted That The Delay Occurred In Filing The Present Appeal Is Neither Intentional Nor Deliberate But Due To Unfortunate & Unavoidable Circumstances Beyond

Section 253Section 263

Veeline Media Ltd.. The AO further proceeded to make adjustments in respect of purchases and made addition under the head of “bogus purchases” to an extent of Rs.4,90,66,446/-. 10. In respect of the second issue regarding the statement of Bank of Baroda, Kolkata during the year ... business of records, audio & video tapes and computer tapes and it could not have sold iron & steel to the appellant company. thus by booking bogus purchases of Rs.4,90,66,446/-, the appellant company had reduced its GP and NP. These aspects had been overlooked by the A.O. while completing

Kuruvila Alexander, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed for Statistical

ITA 561/PUN/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.561/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Kuruvila Alexander, The Income Tax Officer, Gate No.2139/4, Vs Ward-8(1), Pune. Nanekarwadi, . Opp. Vijay Oil Mills, Chaka, Pune – 410501. Pan: Aanpa 4943 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M K Kulkarni – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune For The A.Y.2011-12 Dated 28.08.2020. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Penalty Levied By A.0. Under S.271(L)(C) For Furnishing Of Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & Without Proper Initiation Of Such Proceedings & The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Penalty Levied Without Application Of Mind & Appreciation Of Legal Position Placed Before Her, The Penalty Levied Is Not Sustainable In Law. It Be Quashed.

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Pune (A) 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law though without appreciating the legal position surrendered such bogus purchases for taxation the law with the help of judicial precedents says and clarifies differently. It is settled law that assessment and penalty proceeding having ... manufacturing of various types of Precision Tools etc., The Assessing Officer(AO) received information the Sales Tax Department that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.1,21,501/- from the two parties i.e. Balaji Impex and Nidhi Sales Corporation. A notice under section

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) was justified in disallowing only 12.5% of the total bogus purchase of Rs. 30,02,434/- in the case of the assessee who was engaged in the business of construction activities and could not prove ... 4394/Mum/2018 A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Atul Properties that such bogus purchases were actually reflected in the sales turnover. 2. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 23,32,39,561/ - u/s. 801B

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Atul Properties, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) was justified in disallowing only 12.5% of the total bogus purchase of Rs. 30,02,434/- in the case of the assessee who was engaged in the business of construction activities and could not prove ... 4394/Mum/2018 A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12 M/s. Atul Properties that such bogus purchases were actually reflected in the sales turnover. 2. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 23,32,39,561/ - u/s. 801B

Juridictional ITO - 31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Elphistone Paper Box Manufacturing Co., Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed,

ITA 445/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Jurisdictional Income-Tax Officer- M/S Elphinstone Paper Box 31(1)(1), Manufacturing Co. Room No. 603, 6Th Floor, Vs. S/10 Ram Mandir Road, Kautilya Bhavan, Goregaon (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400104. ‘G’ Block, Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafe 0509 Q Appellant Respondent Co No. 18/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 445/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Co No. 17/Mum/2022 (Ita No. 444/Mum/2021) Assessment Year: 2008-09 &

submitted that in these cases information was , submitted that in these cases information was received from the Sales Tax Authorities Sales Tax Authorities regarding bogus purchases regarding bogus purchases and therefore appeals of the assessee falls under exception clause of and therefore appeals of the assessee falls under exception clause ... information from the Sales Tax Authorities that those were engaged in horities that those were engaged in accepting horities that those were engaged in bogus purchase bills. During the search/survey action on bogus purchase bills. During the search/survey action on bogus purchase bills. During the search/survey action on M/s Bigwin