← 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

ACIT - 17(1), Mumbai vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2482/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita No. 2482, 2483 & 2484/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2011-12, 2010-11 & 2009-10) Acit-17(1) Vs. Bajranglal Bhikaram Room No. 117, Mittal, 1St Floor, G-Block, 310, Gokul Building, Kautiliya Bhavan, Iron Market, Masjid Bandra Kurla Complex Bunder, Mumbai – 400051. Mumbai – 400009. Pan/Gir No. : Afgpm0969R Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 28.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Love Kumar.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

which was levied on the addition of Rs. 11,02,886/- being 4% of the total bogus purchase of Rs. 2,75,72, 160?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty ... which was made on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv.) and Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from debtors without supply of actual goods and sound evidence?" 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate with Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Pinisetty
Section 43BSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

Counsel for the assessee contended that ground No.4 of appeal is with regard to disallowance of Rs.48,298/- on account of bogus purchases allegedly made from hawala parties. The Assessing Officer made 100% addition of the alleged bogus purchases, despite the fact that they were duly accounted ... allowable towards gratuity payment. Consequently, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed. 7. In ground No.4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.48,295/-. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases from parties declared as hawala operators

Advance Power Display Systems Ltd., Mumbai vs. Jt. CIT (OSD), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 222/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 222/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2011-12 ) आअसं. 223/मुं/2019 ("न. व. 2012-13) Advance Power Display System Ltd. Unit No.6, Multistoried Building, Seepz-Sez, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400 096 Pan: Aaaca-5970-G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Jcit (Osd), ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai . अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate With Shri Nishit Gandhi ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Sathya Pinisetty सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 08/02/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-55, Mumbai [In Short 'The Cit(A) ’] For The Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, Respectively. Both The Impugned Order Are Of Even Date I.E. 15/11/2018. Since, Identical Issues Are Involved In 2

For Appellant: Shri Y.P. Trivedi Sr. Advocate with Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Sathya Pinisetty
Section 43BSection 92CSection 92C(1)Section 92C(2)

Counsel for the assessee contended that ground No.4 of appeal is with regard to disallowance of Rs.48,298/- on account of bogus purchases allegedly made from hawala parties. The Assessing Officer made 100% addition of the alleged bogus purchases, despite the fact that they were duly accounted ... allowable towards gratuity payment. Consequently, ground No.3 of appeal is allowed. 7. In ground No.4 of appeal, the assessee has assailed disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.48,295/-. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the purchases from parties declared as hawala operators

ACIT 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkuar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2481/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2481/मुं/2021("न.व.2011-12) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.41,57,384/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent ... ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act invalid, wherein the addition on account of bogus purchases were made in the hands of assessee. Once the assessment is held to be invalid, penalty proceedings does not survive. The CIT(A) has deleted

ACIT -17 (1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2479/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2479/मुं/2021("न.व.2009-10) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala For Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 04/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala for Shri Tanzil Pdvekar
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.68,78,286/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of boguspurchases. Consequent to the addition ... ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act as invalid, wherein the addition on account of bogus purchases were made in the hands of assessee. Once the assessment is held to be invalid, penalty proceedings does not survive

ACIT- 32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Mumbai

ITA 2535/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2535/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 32(1), Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Uttam Shantaram Phutankar, Plot No.96/100 Audumber Bungalow, Charkop Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai 400 092. Pan: Aaapp-7172-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani : None Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/07/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. As Per Defect Memo Raised By The Registry, This Appeal Is Time Barred By 94 Days. The Ld.Departmental Representative Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 30/07/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 31/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Hoshang B. Irani
Section 271(1)(c)

levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ in short ‘the Act’] in respect of addition made on account of bogus purchases. The assessee failed to discharge his onus in proving genuineness of purchases from hawala operators. The CIT(A) without appreciating the facts in right ... restored. 4. We have heard the submissions made by ld.Departmental Representative and have examined the material available on record. The addition on account of bogus purchases was made merely on estimation basis. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the said addition. There

ACIT- 17(1), Mumbai vs. Vinodkumar Premchand Aggarwal, Mumbai

ITA 2480/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhआअसं. 2480/मुं/2021("न.व.2010-11) Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 7(1) Room No.117, 1St Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E), : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai -400 051. बनाम/ Vs. Vinod Kumar Premchand Aggarwal, 3/1 Bradys Flats, Sorab Bharucha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Acspa-0793-N : ""थ"/ Respondent Appellant By : Shri S.N.Kabra Respondent By : Shri Tanzil Pdvekar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/05/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short 'The Cit(A)’] Dated 31/08/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Is Time Barred By 60 Days. Shri S.N.Kabra Representing The Department Submitted That The Delay In Filing Of The Appeal Was On Account Of 2 Covid-19 Pandemic . The Limitation For Filing The Appeal Was Extended By The Hon'Ble Supreme Court Of India On Its Own Motion To Mitigate The Hardship Caused Due To Covid 19 Pandemic. The Limitation For Filing Of Appeals Under Various Laws Was Extended By General Order Reported As Cognizance For Extension Of Limitation 132 Taxmann.Com 123. In The Present Case The Impugned Order Was Passed On 31/08/2021. The Appeal Before The Tribunal Was Filed On 29/12/2021. The Appeal Has Been Filed Within Extended Period Of Limitation. Hence, No Delay In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri S.N.KabraFor Respondent: Shri Tanzil Pdvekar
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

deleting penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]. The assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills. The addition of Rs.38,20,519/- was made by the Assessing Officer in reassessment proceedings on account of bogus purchases. Consequent ... ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has held the reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act as invalid, wherein addition on account of bogus purchases were made in the hands of assessee. Once the assessment is held to be invalid, penalty proceedings does not survive. The CIT(A) has deleted

Ashok Popatbhai Chaudhari, Mumbai vs. ITO-1 7 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1676/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ashok Popatbhai Chaudhari, Vs. Income Tax Officer -17(1)(2) 91, Mapla House, 1St Floor, Mumbai 400020 Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Appellant. Respondent. Pan Achpc5129M Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 02-05-2022 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Wherein The Assessee Is Aggrieved That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining 100% Disallowance On Account Of Bogus Purchase, Vide Order Dated 27.08.2021 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee In This Case Is Engaged In The Retail Trading Business. 3. The Assessment In This Case Was Reopened Upon Receipt Of Information From The Sales Tax Department That Assessee Has Made Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 56,085/-. The Assessee Submitted The Purchase Vouchers & The Payments Were Made Through Banking Channel. However The Suppliers Were Not Produced Before The Assessing Officer. No Other Materials In Support Of Purchases Were Produced. But Sales In This Case Were Not Doubted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

appeal by the wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchase, vide order dated 27.08.2021 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged ... retail trading business. 3. The assessment in this case was reopened upon receipt of information from the Sales Tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases of Rs. 56,085/-. The assessee submitted the purchase vouchers and the payments were made through banking channel. However the suppliers were not produced

Income Tax Officer WD -3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Navjivan Engineering Works, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 58/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanita Nos. 58 & 59/Mum/2022 (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ito, Ward 3(2) M/S Navjeevan 2Ndfloor,Ranimansion, Engineering Works Murbad, Road, D-18, Midc, Phase-Ii Kalyan(W)-42131 Manpada Road, Maharashtra Dombivali (E) Maharashtra – 421204 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aabfn2813K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Love Kumar.Dr Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing 26.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeals Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Love Kumar.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

that the penalty was levied on the addition made on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from dealers without supply of actual goods. 2. The appellant prays that order ... 59/Mum/2022 M/s Navjeevan Engineering Works, Mumbai. from Sales Tax Department Maharashtra, the list of the persons who have provided entries for bogus purchase bills to the tax payers. On verification of the facts, the A.O. find that the assessee is one of the beneficiary and has reason to believe that