← 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

M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 150/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 134/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito-17(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Poonam Shanti 1St Floor, Room No.115, Developers Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chamber Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, 23-E, Sayed Abdulla Brelvi Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai Samachar 400051. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poonam Shanti बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Developers Income Tax-1(3) Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Room No.905, 9Th Floor, Old Chamber 23-E, Sayed Cgo Building, Pratistha Abdulla Brelvi Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Mumbai Samachar Marg, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aamfp0302F

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus loans, interest on bogus loans, A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers & Poonam Mega Developers commission paid on bogus loans and bogus purchases whereas by preferring the cross appeals the assessee has preferred the grounds of appeal against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming/restricting ... penalty to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases [Rs 6,77,745/- ]u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘Act’). 3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the appellant is a partnership firm

M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 149/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 134/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito-17(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Poonam Shanti 1St Floor, Room No.115, Developers Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chamber Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, 23-E, Sayed Abdulla Brelvi Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai Samachar 400051. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poonam Shanti बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Developers Income Tax-1(3) Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Room No.905, 9Th Floor, Old Chamber 23-E, Sayed Cgo Building, Pratistha Abdulla Brelvi Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Mumbai Samachar Marg, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aamfp0302F

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus loans, interest on bogus loans, A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers & Poonam Mega Developers commission paid on bogus loans and bogus purchases whereas by preferring the cross appeals the assessee has preferred the grounds of appeal against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming/restricting ... penalty to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases [Rs 6,77,745/- ]u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘Act’). 3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the appellant is a partnership firm

ITO - 172(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Devlopers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 135/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 134/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito-17(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Poonam Shanti 1St Floor, Room No.115, Developers Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chamber Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, 23-E, Sayed Abdulla Brelvi Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai Samachar 400051. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poonam Shanti बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Developers Income Tax-1(3) Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Room No.905, 9Th Floor, Old Chamber 23-E, Sayed Cgo Building, Pratistha Abdulla Brelvi Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Mumbai Samachar Marg, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aamfp0302F

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus loans, interest on bogus loans, A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers & Poonam Mega Developers commission paid on bogus loans and bogus purchases whereas by preferring the cross appeals the assessee has preferred the grounds of appeal against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming/restricting ... penalty to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases [Rs 6,77,745/- ]u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘Act’). 3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the appellant is a partnership firm

ITO - 17(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Devlopers, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 134/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 134/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13) Ito-17(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Poonam Shanti 1St Floor, Room No.115, Developers Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Chamber Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, 23-E, Sayed Abdulla Brelvi Bandra (E), Mumbai- Road, Mumbai Samachar 400051. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 149/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Poonam Shanti बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Developers Income Tax-1(3) Vs. 66-B, 3Rd Floor, Podar Room No.905, 9Th Floor, Old Chamber 23-E, Sayed Cgo Building, Pratistha Abdulla Brelvi Road, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Mumbai Samachar Marg, Lines, Mumbai-400020. Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan No. Aamfp0302F

For Appellant: Shri Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus loans, interest on bogus loans, A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/s. Poonam Shanti Developers & Poonam Mega Developers commission paid on bogus loans and bogus purchases whereas by preferring the cross appeals the assessee has preferred the grounds of appeal against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming/restricting ... penalty to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases [Rs 6,77,745/- ]u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘Act’). 3. The brief facts of the case as noted by the Ld. CIT(A) is that the appellant is a partnership firm