← 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, Mumbai vs. Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5738/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit बिधम/ Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. & Cross Objection No.41/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5738/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Jasmino Polymertech Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-6(3)(1) 5Th Floor, Room No.506, Ltd. Vs. L-61, Midc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Taloja, Raigad, Maharashtra- Road, Mumbai-400020. 410208. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacj5175G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ujjawal Kumar Assessee By: Shri Devendra Jain सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 21.05.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.41/Mum/2021 A.Y.2010-11 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ujjawal Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 40

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5% of the bogus purchases rather than the whole of such purchases amounting to Rs.10,36,723/-”. 2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow 12.5% of the bogus purchases rather than the whole of such purchases without appreciating that such allowance of 87.5% of expenditure imply allowance of purchases made in cash from the „grey‟ market, thereby rendering the provisions of section

Oriental Fabritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.C.I.T.13(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1425/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanआ.अ.सं.1425/मुं/2021 िन.व.2009-10) Orient Fabritech Pvt. Ltd. C/So D.C.Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca), (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.), 297, Tardeo Road, Willie Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp. Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan: Aaaco8702A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Range- 1(2)(4), Room No. 537, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rajkumar Singh. "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/03/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) (In Short

For Appellant: Sh. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Sh. R. A. Dhyani, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

submitted that the assessment for AY 2009-10 in the case of assessee was re-opened on the ground that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from M/s Ankit Enterprises – Rs. 5,11,810/-, Raj Hans Steel – Rs. 77,444/- and Mukta Steel – Rs. 10,00,350/-. The Assessing ... Officer (AO) made addition of Rs. 15,89,604/- in respect of the entire alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee from the aforesaid three parties. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal in ITA No. 5113/Mum/2017. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2018 estimated the addition

Himanshu Vasantrai Doshi HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(2)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4352/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchases but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. All the issues are in connection with the restriction ... addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchase. The contention of the Ld. Representative of the assessee is that the restriction of the bogus purchase should be restricted to the extent of G.P. ratio i.e. 5.98% of the bogus purchase. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative

ITO 29(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Himanshu Vasantilal Doshi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 3690/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchases but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. All the issues are in connection with the restriction ... addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchase. The contention of the Ld. Representative of the assessee is that the restriction of the bogus purchase should be restricted to the extent of G.P. ratio i.e. 5.98% of the bogus purchase. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative

ITO 29(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Himanshu Vasantilal Doshi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 3689/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchases but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. All the issues are in connection with the restriction ... addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchase. The contention of the Ld. Representative of the assessee is that the restriction of the bogus purchase should be restricted to the extent of G.P. ratio i.e. 5.98% of the bogus purchase. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative

ITO 29(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Himanshu Vasantilal Doshi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby partly allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 3688/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4352 To 4354/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011 -12) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(3) 1609, 16Th Floor, Air India Doshi Huf Vs. 29/Cc/4, Ambika Building, Nariman Point, Apartment, Nahur Road, Mumbai-400021. Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3688 To 3690/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito-29(1)(4) Mr. Himanshu Vasantrai C-10, 1St Floor, Pratyaksha Doshi Huf Vs. Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra 29/Cc/4, Ambika (E), Mumbai-400051. Apartment, Nahur Road, Survodaya Nagar, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400080. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahh6248D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By: Shri Shambhu Yadav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/03/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Jm): The Assessee As Well As Revenue Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12. Ita. No.4352/Mum/2016

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Shambhu Yadav
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchases but the assessee was not satisfied, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. All the issues are in connection with the restriction ... addition to the extent of 20% of the bogus purchase. The contention of the Ld. Representative of the assessee is that the restriction of the bogus purchase should be restricted to the extent of G.P. ratio i.e. 5.98% of the bogus purchase. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative

ITO - 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Print Plus P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1938/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleito – 7(3)(1) Vs. M/S Print Plus Pvt Ltd Room No. 142E, 1St 122, Bldg No. 2, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shah & Nahar M.K.Road, Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400 013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaecp7030J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.A.Dhyani.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A.Dhyani.Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

authorities. Finally, the A.O. has dealt on the information and the available evidences and is of the opinion that the assessee has indulge in bogus purchases and A.O. has made 100% addition of purchase transactions of Rs. 71,96,242/-. The A.O. find that the assessee company has paid directors ... considered the judicial decisions of the Honble High Court and Honble Tribunal and restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of bogus purchases and granted partial relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the CIT(A) order, the revenue has filed an appeal before the Honble Tribunal

ACIT, Circle-6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Creo Lifestyles P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1163/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleacit – 6(2)(1) Vs. M/S Creo Lifestyle Pvt Room No. 504, Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, 161, 2Nd Floor, Starcity Mk Road, Manmala Tank Road, Mumbai – 4000 020 Mahim West Mumbai – 400016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabci8961N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri R.A. Dhyani.Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani.Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,68,339/- on account of bogus purchases to only 12.5% of the M/s Creo Lifestyle Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. such bogus purchase, without giving any findings as to how 12.5% has been ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchase to only 12.5% of the bogus purchase, without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case