← 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

Omnitel Technologies Private Limited, Haryana vs. Additional/Joint/ Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Apr 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Omnitel Technologies Vs Ito Pvt.Ltd., B-220, Florence Ward-3(1) Marvel, Sushant Lok-Iii, Gurgaon Chakkarpur B.O., Sikanderpur Ghost (68), Gurgaon, Haryana-122002 Pan-Aafca2421B Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2016-17] Omnitel Technologies Pvt. Vs Additional/Joint/ Ltd., B-220, Florence Deputy/Assistant Marvel, Sushant Lok-Iii, Commissioner Of Sector-57, Gurgaon, Income Tax, National Haryana-122002 Faceless Assessment Pan-Aafca2421B Centre, Delhi Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 10.12.2024 & 06.11.2024 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld.

Section 115BSection 147Section 250Section 69C

Nos.353 & 73/Del/2025 accepted the contention of the assessee and made the addition of INR 1,43,20,000/- towards bogus purchases and invoked provision of section 115BBE of the Act. 5. Against such order, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 10.12.2024, partly allowed ... memo. Grounds of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are with 7. respect to confirmation of addition made on account of bogus purchases therefore, they have been taken together for consideration. 8. Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available

Omkara Diamond Exports Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9175/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, Therefore, Lies Not Merely In The Realm Of Quantum Addition, But Fundamentally Concerns The Legality Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Under Section 147 In A Second Round Of Reassessment Proceedings On Identical Set Of Facts Which Had Already Been Examined & Adjudicated In Earlier Proceedings. Omkara Diamond Exports Private Limited 2 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Original Return Of Income On 30.09.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 15,85,249/-. The Case Was Initially Reopened Under Section 147 Based On Information Received From The Investigation Wing, Mumbai, Alleging That The Assessee Had Obtained Accommodation Entries From Entities Controlled By Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. The Reasons Recorded In The First Round Clearly Refer To The Alleged Modus Operandi Of Issuing Bogus Purchase Bills & The Purchases Alleged To Have Been Made From Eight Parties Aggregating To Rs. 8,24,01,689/-.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

entries from entities controlled by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain. The reasons recorded in the first round clearly refer to the alleged modus operandi of issuing bogus purchase bills and the purchases alleged to have been made from eight parties aggregating to Rs. 8,24,01,689/-. 3. Pursuant thereto, the first ... read with section 147 vide order dated 23.03.2016, wherein the Assessing Officer made an addition to the extent of 9% of the alleged bogus purchases. The learned CIT(A), by order dated 22.12.2017, sustained the addition to the extent of 8%. The Tribunal, by order dated 30.09.2020, directed that

Income Tax Officer 41(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Transport Service, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5435/MUM/2025[2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Ito 41(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Anil Transport Service Room No.830, Kautilya B-102, Harshad Apartment, E.E. Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra East Highway Behind Everad Nagar Sion Mumbai-400051 East, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Co No.90/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Anil Transport Service Vs Ito 41(1)(1) B-102, Harshad Apartment, Room No.830, Kautilya Bhavan, E.E. Highway Behind Everad Bkc, Bandra East Mumbai-400051 Nagar Sion East, Mumbai- 400022 Pan: Aalfa8944J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.V.Dharkar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026

For Appellant: Shri C.V.DharkarFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250

No.5435/Mum/2025 and CO No.90/Mum/2026 Anil Transport Service alleged bogus entities. Accordingly, the Ld. AO added the entire amount of Rs.2,17,94,500/- as bogus purchases. Further, the Ld. AO disallowed unverifiable expenses at the rate of 10% of total expenses claimed, amounting to Rs.10,40,138/-, resulting ... before any of the appellate authorities. 3. The Ld. DR submitted that Shri Ramnarayan Upadhyay had categorically admitted that the group concerns had undertaken bogus purchases, out of which purchases amounting to Rs.2,17,94,500/- pertained to the assessee. It was contended that the Ld. AO had rightly made