← 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

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Pukhraj Ranka, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.291/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Jitendra Pukhraj Ranka, Surat. Prop Of M/S P Jitendra & Co., 304/A, Sumangal Appt., Jadda Khadi, Mahidharpura, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abhpj0571F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ca Revenue By : Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-I/11694/2018-19 Dated 27.03.2019, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143 R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Dated 23.03.2016. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows: “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Quashing Reopened Assessment Proceedings For Ay 2008-09. (Ii) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate Decision Of Larger Bench Of Hon'Ble Gujarat High Court In The Case Of A.L.A Firm Vs Cit, 189 (1991) Itr 285, Whereas The Hon'Ble High Court Has Held That The Jurisdiction Of The Ito To Reassess Income Arises If He Has Reassessed Based On Specific & Relevant Information Coming Into His

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 147Section 148

part of assessing officer. 8. In the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) dated 23.03.2016, the assessing officer discussed only about alleged bogus purchase,. The details viz invoices, bank statement, stock statements etc. were filed by assessee were rejected summarily and addition u/s 69C of the Act, for purchase ... Trading(l) Pvt. Ltd and Rs.34,99,997/- from J.P.K. Trading (I) Pvt. Ltd. Hence, information is received that the assessee has booked aggregate bogus purchase of Rs.31,88,71,837/-. This information was not available at the time of passing the original assessment order. As per the information provided

Naeemuddin Azimuddin Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 26 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4759/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.4759/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11) Naeemuddin Azimuddin Shaikh, 2/25, Parlelshwar Society, Shahaji Raje Marg, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai 400 057. Pan: Blups-1557-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(4), Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C-11, Room No.711, 7Th Floor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E),Mumbai 400 051. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Mehendale ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

assessee for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened on the basis of information received from DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.12,62,317/- from M/s. Rajeshwar Metal Industries. In assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice ... ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessee has prima-facie good case in his favour. The solitary addition is with respect to bogus purchases from M/s. Rajeshwari Metal Industries. The assessee has in his possession invoices vide which the assessee had purchased material from the aforesaid party