← 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

Mr Ketan Gokuldas Badiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2611/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2611/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Ketan Gokuldas Badiani बिधम/ Ito-33(2)(2) F-221 Raj Arcade Ahaveer 609, C-12, Pratyaksh Kar Vs. Nagar Dhanukar Wadi Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Kandiwali West, Mumbai- Complex, Bandra (E), 400067. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajapb1472C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rajendra Thakkar (Ar) Revenue By: Shri Gurbinder Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.01.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -45, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. A) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & Fact Son Records In Confirming An Addition Of 15,61,217 By Arbitrarily Estimating The Additional Gross Profit @ 5% Of Turnover As Against 4.38% Already Offered To Tax By The Appellant. A.Y. 2011-12 B) The Appellant Submit That It Have Been Engaged In Trading Of The Leather Articles, Transported In Hand Carts, Items Of Purchases Are Identifiable Against The Sales.

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Thakkar (AR)For Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 148

already been adjudicated in the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA. No.3094/Mum/2019 01.01.2021 for the A.Y. 2011-12 in which the addition of bogus purchase has been restricted to the extent of G.P. rate of bogus purchase at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. However ... find that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the suppressed profit to the extent of 12.50% of bogus purchases, when the assessee could not produce any parties or evidence that the said goods were purchased A.Y.2012-13 and the onus of proving genuineness of purchases ... payer and confirmed the decision of the Hon’ble High Court for addition of entire income is to be made on account of bogus purchase as against the ITAT’s decision restricting it 25% 4. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds

Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-5(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel Acit, Cir.5(3) 9, Malhar Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Shilaj Nandoli Road Kalol, Gandhinagar. Pan : Abvp P9561 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 8.6.2018 In Cit(A)-5/Acit Cir.5(3)/10028/2017-18 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short).

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax had made an addition of Rs. 43,53,429/- to the total- income of the assessee on account of bogus purchase. However, the Ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 5(3), Ahmedabad had restricted the bogus purchase to Rs. 10,88,357/- on estimated ... dated 11.6.2015 wherein Rs.4,79,000/- on account of undisclosed income from Malhar Dairy Farm was upheld and Rs.10,88,357/- on account of bogus purchase were being upheld. 4. It is thereafter, the Ld.AO vide order dated 31.3.2017 levied penalty of Rs.4,84,310/- on the ground that