← 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

ITO, Ward 3(2) (7), Ahmedabad vs. M/S G.D. Infrastructure, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1792/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) 4, Narnarayan Estate Vs Ahmedabad. Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ahmedabad. Vs 4, Narnarayan Estate Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dipak R. Shah Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 22.5.2017 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Wd.3(2)/195/15-16 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.1772 & 1792/Ahd/2017

For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

proposed construction site. However, the ld.AO has not appreciated the above purchases and concluded without making any verification, treated the same as bogus purchases, which is not in accordance with law. The ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that evidences produced before the lower authorities are enough to prove genuineness

M/S G.D. Infrastructure, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 3(2) (7), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 1772/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) 4, Narnarayan Estate Vs Ahmedabad. Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ito, Ward-3(2)(7) M/S.G.D. Infrastructure Ahmedabad. Vs 4, Narnarayan Estate Isanpur Road, Narol Ahmedabad 382 405. Pan : Aagfg 9288 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dipak R. Shah Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Against Order Dated 22.5.2017 Passed By Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] In Appeal No.Cit(A)-3/Wd.3(2)/195/15-16 Relating To The Assessment Year 2012-13. Ita No.1772 & 1792/Ahd/2017

For Appellant: Shri Dipak R. Shah ARFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 40A(3)

proposed construction site. However, the ld.AO has not appreciated the above purchases and concluded without making any verification, treated the same as bogus purchases, which is not in accordance with law. The ld.counsel for the assessee further submitted that evidences produced before the lower authorities are enough to prove genuineness

Shri Rohinton Cyrus Malesra, Mumbai vs. The ITO -19(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1598/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Rohinton Cyrus Vs. Ito – 19(3)(1) Malesra Matru Mandir, A-201, Simla House, Tardeo Opp L.D.Ruparel Marg Mumbai – 400007 Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400026. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagpm5502K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Anil Gala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Anil Gala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla.DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

r.w.s 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. Disallowance of bogus purchases 1) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 260449 being 100% of Shri Rohinton Cyrus Malesra, Mumbai purchases from Newspark ... processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The A.O has received information from the DGIT(Inv) Mumbai that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchase bills from two parties namely Newspark Trading Co. Pvt Ltd of Rs. 2,19,082 and Nakoda Marples of Rs. 41,367/-.Hence