← 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(1), Kalyan vs. Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya, Dombivli

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

ITA 593/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 593/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito, Ward – 3(1) Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Prop. Of M/S. Industrial Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan Switchgear, B-10, Gurudatta (West)-421301. Tower, Pandurangwadi, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E), 421201. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agbpv1605R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Thane Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,56,771/- Out Of The Total Addition Of Rs. 7,50,595/- Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases, Despite Holding That The Purchases Were Not A.Y.2010-11 Genuine & The Assessee Failed To Prove Genuineness Of The Transactions.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69C

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,56,771/- out of the total addition of Rs. 7,50,595/- made on account of bogus purchases, despite holding that the purchases were not A.Y.2010-11 genuine and the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the transactions. 2. On the facts ... assessee was reopened on receipt of the information from the DGIT(Inv.), Pune in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry from the seven parties in sum of Rs.7,50,595/-. The details of the parties are hereby as under:- Tin of hawala Name

ITO WD 3(1), Kalyan vs. Potdar Ajit Krishnaji (HUF, Mumbai

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

ITA 592/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 592/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito, Ward-3(1) Potdar Ajit Krishnaji (Huf) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, V Krishna Steel Trading, Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W) Vijay Baug, Varap Village, 421301. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421301. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaehp2434D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv Brahme Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A) Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Learned Income Tai Officer Has Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148. A.Y.2010-11 Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv BrahmeFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69C

A.Y.2010-11 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE 2. The learned Income Tax officer has erred in making additions of Rs.7 ,77 ,700/ - towards alleged bogus purchases. 3. The Assessing Officer has erred in rejecting Books of Accounts without giving opportunity to the Appellant. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add, Alter ... results as emanated from the Books of Accounts be accepted. 3. The addition of Ps. 7,77,700/- made by Assessing Officer towards alleged bogus purchases be deleted. 4. Any other relief as may be deemed by the authority.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Dy CIT - 32(1), Mumbai vs. Naresh Traders & Suresh Traders (Joint Venture), Mumbai

In the result the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 448/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 448/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-32(1) बिधम/ Naresh Traders & Suresh Room No.702, 7Th Floor, Traders (Joint Venture) Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra 39A, Ganjawala Apt., Svp Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaan4364R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anant N. Pai Revenue By: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 11.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. “Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S.271(1)(C) Of The It. Act, 1961, Of Rs.27,00,000/- Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessing Officer Has Correctly Held That A.Y.2009-10 The Assessee Bas Failed To Substantiate The Transactions Claimed In Its Return Of Income Thereby Evaded Taxes To That Extent.”

For Appellant: Shri Anant N. PaiFor Respondent: Shri C. T. Mathews (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

levied by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, of Rs.27,00,000/-without appreciating the fact that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its return of Income thereby making himself liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act” 4. “ Whether on the facts ... submission made by the appellant. In this case the assessment was completed the adding Rs.80,98,229/- being 12.5% of bogus purchases as non-genuine, purchases. In this case, the AO for want of minor documents like lorry transportation receipts, delivery challans added certain percentage of purchases on estimation