← 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(3), Thane vs. Shri Shaitesh Dattatray Thakare, Thane

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 290/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,425/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.38,61,698/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal ... erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs.2,58,886/- levied u/s. 271(l)(c) on the estimated profit addition of 25% on alleged bogus purchase. Shri Shailesh D. Thakare 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

Shailesh D. Thakre (Prop of Shivam Trading, Mumbai vs. ITO WD3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1733/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,425/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.38,61,698/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal ... erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs.2,58,886/- levied u/s. 271(l)(c) on the estimated profit addition of 25% on alleged bogus purchase. Shri Shailesh D. Thakare 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

Shailesh D. Thakare, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1732/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,425/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.38,61,698/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal ... erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs.2,58,886/- levied u/s. 271(l)(c) on the estimated profit addition of 25% on alleged bogus purchase. Shri Shailesh D. Thakare 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

Printrade Issues India P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 7 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1770/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Printrade Issues India Private The Asst. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax, 7(3)(2) Gala No.17, Pragati Indus Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Estate, 316, Nm Joshi Marg, Mumbai-400 004 Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 011 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccp1550F Appellant By : Shri Mohan Makjija, Ar Respondent By : Shri V Tripathi, Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Am: 01. This Appeal Is Field By Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai Dated 17Th March, 2020, Wherein The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer Of ₹14,15,549/- Was Upheld. This Is Only The Grievance In This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Makjija, ARFor Respondent: Shri V Tripathi, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

genuine therefore, no addition should be made. Alternatively, it was contested that income may be estimated at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The learned CIT(A) rejected both the contentions and stated that assessee has not led any evidence with regard to the goods purchase and corresponding ... printing. The allegation is Printrade Issues India Pvt. ltd.; AY 09-10 that the assessee has obtained accommodation entry in the name of bogus purchase bills from M/s Padmavati Enterprises which is listed as bogus hawala dealers as per sales tax website. The Assessing Officer has made the addition

ITO -22 (2) (1), Mumbai vs. Mageshraja Ramraja Nadar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1673/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं. 1673/मुं/2021(िन.व.2010-11) Ito-22(2)(1), Mumbai : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant 312, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug Parel, Mumbai बनाम/ Vs. Mageshraja Ramaraja Nadar P/5, Gandhi Nagar 90 Feet Road, Dharavi Mumbai-400 01 : ""थ"/ Respondent Pan : Adjpn8379H Appellant By : Ms. Neha Thakur (Dr) Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 16/03/2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 16/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Department Is Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28/02/2020 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Deleting Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Thakur (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. The ld.DR pointed that the Assessing Officer made addition of 12.5% of the unproved purchases, the assessee challenged the addition before the CIT(A), where ... authorities below. The Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. A perusal of assessment order shows that the addition in respect of bogus purchases has been made merely on estimation basis